Capital Punishment

[Milkyway!]

Its probably been done in here, but I don't feel like searching out for it. In your opinion, do you think capital punishment is correct?

I know if it were me, or my children, mother, sister, dad, etc..that came in my house, raped my children, killed my wife or some crap like that before I could stop them, if I could stop them. And they were caught, I'd want them burnt to the stake personally. So why shouldn't that be the case for someone elses family?

I think statistically its very expensive to inject those shots into someone, and with how the "humane way of killing someone" is today, it would probably cost less, to actually let them rot in prison for the rest of their lives. Not to sure about that, maybe someone can get me some statistics on that?

Is it murder? I mean its a human life you'd be taking, yes. But, whats the stake? Once you kill someone, does that not give you a just cause to kill someone back? Its like defending yourself. Revenge isn't always sweet, but most of the time it is. So in your opinion, whats your outlook on capital punishment?

 

[HBK-aholic]

I doubt the costs are true of what you believe. While I doubt there are statistics, feeding someone for maybe 40-50 years, as well as paying for everything else, and all the luxuries they get nowadays is probably more expensive.

I like the idea of a death penalty, there are some scum who don't deserve too live, and I'd take pleasure in watching them die. That being said, I don't think it'd be necessary if our legal system got a complete overhaul. When someone is given life in prison, it should mean life, without a doubt. Not life but you'll be free in 10 years. Luxuries should be a no go. They should have the bare minimum to survive. If prisons were like that, and you could stay there until you died, I wouldn't think the death penalty was necessary.

 

[48.7 is Approximately 49 Times Better Than You]

I don't really want to discuss this much, as I have no authority to condemn anyone to death, but it costs a shit load to put someone to death. It isn't the shot, it's all of the appeals and trials and what not. I don't have statistics, but I'm correct.

 

[X]

I know if it were me, or my children, mother, sister, dad, etc..that came in my house, raped my children, killed my wife or some crap like that before I could stop them, if I could stop them. And they were caught, I'd want them burnt to the stake personally. So why shouldn't that be the case for someone elses family?

Because that's not justice. That's revenge. And every person who supports the death penalty doesn't seem to understand that.

I think statistically its very expensive to inject those shots into someone, and with how the "humane way of killing someone" is today, it would probably cost less, to actually let them rot in prison for the rest of their lives. Not to sure about that, maybe someone can get me some statistics on that?

It obviously costs more to shelter, clothe and feed a man for years then it is to kill him. But the solution to murder shouldn't be more death. Is the death of that killer going to bring back his victims? No.

Is it murder? I mean its a human life you'd be taking, yes. But, whats the stake? Once you kill someone, does that not give you a just cause to kill someone back? Its like defending yourself. Revenge isn't always sweet, but most of the time it is. So in your opinion, whats your outlook on capital punishment?

You've just proven my point that most people in support of capital punishment do not understand the difference between revenge and justice.

As for whether or not it can be classified as murder, of course it can. Someone is injecting that man with a chemical that kills him. It's murder. No different then a soldier shooting an enemy, it's all murder. I hate the fact that so many people seem to think that sometimes murder is acceptable in certain situations. Violence has never been the cure for more violence, and if Dr. King were around today he'd be the first to tell you that.

II like the idea of a death penalty, there are some scum who don't deserve too live, and I'd take pleasure in watching them die.

And what exactly gives you or any other person the right to determine who does and doesn't deserve life? The fact that you say you'd take pleasure in watching someone die is rather disturbing, and quite frankly sadomasochistic.

 

[HBK-aholic]

And what exactly gives you or any other person the right to determine who does and doesn't deserve life? The fact that you say you'd take pleasure in watching someone die is rather disturbing, and quite frankly sadomasochistic.

I don't care what you call it. If there was someone out there who'd hurt my family, and they were sentenced to the Death Penalty, I would absolutely love the fact they were no longer in this world. As I said in the rest of my post, if the justice system was one which people were sentenced to life and it meant life behind bars, I wouldn't think the Death Penalty was needed. But until that time, the death penalty is the only way I'd think it's fair.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Tell me you haven't been waiting for this one. LOL

Because that's not justice. That's revenge. And every person who supports the death penalty doesn't seem to understand that.

I agree to a point here. I think that the death penalty present quite the deterrent. People in prison can still see their families, watch TV, etc. I'm not against the death penalty, but I see the arguments against it. I certainly understand the other side.

It obviously costs more to shelter, clothe and feed a man for years then it is to kill him. But the solution to murder shouldn't be more death. Is the death of that killer going to bring back his victims? No.

I think for a certain set of people, killing is all they understand. And no, the death penalty doesn't bring back victims, but it does being a certain closure to the family of the victim. If your child is killed by someone his own age, you probably won't live long enough to see that rat bastard die. The death penalty allows the family of the victim the peace of mind. The the family of the victim revenge and justice are the same thing.

You've just proven my point that most people in support of capital punishment do not understand the difference between revenge and justice.

I understand the difference. I also understand that just because there is a difference doesn't make one better than the other. Social Contract theorists wouldn't say there was a difference however. Reciprocity holds that a criminal must surrender rights in proportion to those he took away. Our legal system allows for impeded liberty to take the place of stolen property, however, a taken life is another matter. I find it hard to believe that you can take enough liberty away from someone to reciprocally replace a life. Killing someone doesn't bring the victims back, but neither does imprisoning them. I believe that a better protection of social order exists with capital punishment, theoretically speaking.

As for whether or not it can be classified as murder, of course it can.

Murder and killing are as different as revenge and justice.

Someone is injecting that man with a chemical that kills him. It's murder. No different then a soldier shooting an enemy, it's all murder.

That's killing. In war, if you don't kill, you get killed. Killing to keep from being killed is not murder, in my opinion. I certainly understand how you can see it differently. The trouble with this debate is that it always argued in the abstract. Definitions are never universal, and that skews the debate away from the ideas of justice and protection.

I hate the fact that so many people seem to think that sometimes murder is acceptable in certain situations. Violence has never been the cure for more violence, and if Dr. King were around today he'd be the first to tell you that.

If someone violently breaks into my home, I am going to violently fill their bodies full of 45 caliber bullets. If my family is asleep inside, and someone enters my home with bad intentions, I think I would fully be able to justify my violent actions to myself.

And what exactly gives you or any other person the right to determine who does and doesn't deserve life? The fact that you say you'd take pleasure in watching someone die is rather disturbing, and quite frankly sadomasochistic.

Nothing gives me that right, however, I have every right to support politicians who do that that right. Here's another example. I feel that life begins at conception. Abortion, to me, is killing a human being. But it's legal. Certain politicians have decided that this kind of killing is acceptable, and both sides are as heated on both debates.

The funny thing is the people on the side of abortion, the ones who say that the act is not murder, are in favor of a second murder charge if someone kills a pregnant woman. The people who are against abortion, because it is killing, are mostly in favor of the death penalty. All that says about this nation is that we are, as a whole, bloodthirsty, and we have different ways of going about getting our fix.

 

[Razor]

Meh. I'd rather not step between Xfear and fromthesouth. Let them go at it.

But from where I stand, it makes very little sense. Will killing this person undo whatever they did? No? Then why kill them? Spending their life in jail is enough of a hit. No need to become no better than they are, and kill them. Eye for an eye just leaves a lot of blind people.

I would argue that this is murder anyway. It is true that in war if you don't kill you'll be killed, and that is not considered murder by anyone but your staunchest pacifists. I am fully behind the idea that if you are in a war any enemy combatant is fair game. Until he is neutralized, he is a threat. However, this is not a war. If it is, then we're all enemy combatants in a war against the murderers. Then when I kill one on the side of the street, I shouldn't be arrested. Though I will be. If you can otherwise sufficiently neutralize him from killing other members of society, then do that instead of killing him. Barring any treatment that is incredibly inhumane. Such as, I don't know, killing him.

And besides that, it costs the state incredibly more than a life in prison sentence. The death penalty comes with automatic appeals, and a prisoner can drag out his sentence for as many as 10 years. Many manage even more. All of those court costs and lawyer fees by themselves are more than a man getting 25 to life. 10 court appeals costs a lot more than 25 years of feeding a man. Of course, this is for the American Court System. The British system may cost less. Though I doubt it.

The Death Penalty is nothing more than court sponsored revenge, and costly revenge at that. Simple as.

 

[X]

I don't care what you call it. If there was someone out there who'd hurt my family, and they were sentenced to the Death Penalty, I would absolutely love the fact they were no longer in this world. As I said in the rest of my post, if the justice system was one which people were sentenced to life and it meant life behind bars, I wouldn't think the Death Penalty was needed. But until that time, the death penalty is the only way I'd think it's fair.

Again, what you want is revenge, not justice. The justice system is not about revenge.

Tell me you haven't been waiting for this one. LOL

Should be good...

I agree to a point here. I think that the death penalty present quite the deterrent. People in prison can still see their families, watch TV, etc. I'm not against the death penalty, but I see the arguments against it. I certainly understand the other side.

I think for a certain set of people, killing is all they understand. And no, the death penalty doesn't bring back victims, but it does being a certain closure to the family of the victim.

I dont understand that argument. So we kill more people in order to make the victims family feel minorly better for maybe two weeks?

I believe everyone is redeemable, no one is just a mindless killing machine that can't be saved.

What about the killer's family? Is it justice that they now no longer have their child? Even the sickest killers have people who care about them, and killing them is only going to hurt even more people.

If your child is killed by someone his own age, you probably won't live long enough to see that rat bastard die. The death penalty allows the family of the victim the peace of mind. The the family of the victim revenge and justice are the same thing.

The purpose of the justice system is not to deal out petty revenge killings, because thats really all it is you're doing. Am I the only one that sees the absurdity in ENDING SOMEONE'S LIFE to make somebody feel better? To give them peace of mind? That's despicable to me. These are people, not monsters. They're made of the same flesh and blood as you are.

I understand the difference. I also understand that just because there is a difference doesn't make one better than the other. Social Contract theorists wouldn't say there was a difference however. Reciprocity holds that a criminal must surrender rights in proportion to those he took away.

Our justice system is not about reciprocity. Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia use that system, in which they cut off your hand if you steal. That would be true reciprocity. If you rape a woman, you aren't sentenced to be raped now are you? But why not? Wouldn't it give the same "peace of mind" to the rape victims family?

Our legal system allows for impeded liberty to take the place of stolen property, however, a taken life is another matter. I find it hard to believe that you can take enough liberty away from someone to reciprocally replace a life. Killing someone doesn't bring the victims back, but neither does imprisoning them. I believe that a better protection of social order exists with capital punishment, theoretically speaking.

I get what you're saying and partially agree, but honestly I'm not sure what your reasons are for supporting capital punishment. Because it deters crime? You really think someone who's angry enough to get a gun and shoot someone is going to stop and think twice about the death penalty? Of course not. Nobody commits a crime thinking about getting caught, otherwise why would they have committed it in the first place?

And there really isn't any verifiable proof to back up the notion that the death penalty deters crime.

Murder and killing are as different as revenge and justice.

The only difference between murder and "killing" is that murder is done purposely with the intent to kill. The only way it isn't murder is if you were to I don't know, accidently drop a paint can from a building and it kills someone down on the street below.

That's killing. In war, if you don't kill, you get killed. Killing to keep from being killed is not murder, in my opinion. I certainly understand how you can see it differently. The trouble with this debate is that it always argued in the abstract. Definitions are never universal, and that skews the debate away from the ideas of justice and protection.

Everyone's opinon of murder is up to interpretation, but personally I consider any act of killing that is done purposely with the sole purpose of ending that person's life is murder. I'm not saying we should go and prosecute soldier's for killing enemy combatants, that'd be ridiculious.

If someone violently breaks into my home, I am going to violently fill their bodies full of 45 caliber bullets. If my family is asleep inside, and someone enters my home with bad intentions, I think I would fully be able to justify my violent actions to myself.

Really, right into filling their body with bullets? Now how is that justice? If you believe in reciprocity, don't you think death is a bit extreme for breaking and entering, one of the most common crimes committed on Earth?

I'm not saying you don't have the right to, it just seems like far too steep a punishment.

Nothing gives me that right, however, I have every right to support politicians who do that that right. Here's another example. I feel that life begins at conception. Abortion, to me, is killing a human being. But it's legal. Certain politicians have decided that this kind of killing is acceptable, and both sides are as heated on both debates.

Abortion is a tricky subject because theres really just no way at all to prove either side's argument. So instead we have endless bickering and never any ground given. I won't even go into abortion because a debate on abortion is just *********ion of your political ideologies.

The funny thing is the people on the side of abortion, the ones who say that the act is not murder, are in favor of a second murder charge if someone kills a pregnant woman. The people who are against abortion, because it is killing, are mostly in favor of the death penalty. All that says about this nation is that we are, as a whole, bloodthirsty, and we have different ways of going about getting our fix.

Agreed completely there.

 

[Milkyway!]

The funny thing is the people on the side of abortion, the ones who say that the act is not murder, are in favor of a second murder charge if someone kills a pregnant woman. The people who are against abortion, because it is killing, are mostly in favor of the death penalty. All that says about this nation is that we are, as a whole, bloodthirsty, and we have different ways of going about getting our fix.

(I'm inquireing xfears statements on Cap Punishment as well)

Like you said, theres a diffrence in murder, and killing someone. The baby in the womb is innocent, its never done anything. You did it yourself (in most cases). That is murder to me. Killing someone, means you have a just cause (yes justice and revenge is diffrent) Now then, killing someone, because they killed someone else, or others. Thats justice.

Capital punishment not only puts the family to ease as fts said, as well as exterminates the world of the murderer. The way prison is today, lots of people end up going back a few years later. (Not saying its not possible to turn a new life) I think in the movie Gridiron Gang it says something like 70% of all teens who go into a juvinille detention center, go to jail once they turn 18. Thats saying something. People can turn ways, but more often than not, they don't.

 

[Razor]

Like you said, theres a diffrence in murder, and killing someone. The baby in the womb is innocent, its never done anything. You did it yourself (in most cases). That is murder to me. Killing someone, means you have a just cause (yes justice and revenge is diffrent)

No. I'm not going to get into the abortion debate, because that has nothing to do with Capital Punishment. However, killing someone because they killed someone else is not justice. As I said above, an eye for eye just leaves a lot of blind people.

So, the difference between Killing and Murder is a "just cause?" Bullshit. Murder is just killing that society has deemed illegal. That's a pretty damn nice definition. I'll even go and the get the definitions for you from Dictionary.com

1.the act of a person or thing that kills.

^^^Killing

Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

Even Dictionary.com and the United States Justice System agrees with me.

Now then, killing someone, because they killed someone else, or others. Thats justice.

Justice would be the murderer rotting in prison for the rest of his natural life. Killing him does nothing but make the family feel good for a few days and lets the jury and judge exercise some weird, perverted power over the man's life that we wouldn't be afforded outside of court. Capital Punishment is not justice, it's revenge. And our justice system, as Xfear said before, is for justice. Not revenge.

Capital punishment not only puts the family to ease as fts said, as well as exterminates the world of the murderer. The way prison is today, lots of people end up going back a few years later. (Not saying its not possible to turn a new life) I think in the movie Gridiron Gang it says something like 70% of all teens who go into a juvinille detention center, go to jail once they turn 18. Thats saying something. People can turn ways, but more often than not, they don't.

It doesn't always put the family at ease. Say the father is on my side of the debate and believes the murderer who killed his child shouldn't be killed in retaliation? No ease for him, just another murder.

And to kill the man is to say "Sorry, you're broken. No more life for you." That's fucked up in so many levels. Next you'll be arguing that we lock up thieves and any other criminal forever because they'll never change. I mean, they're taking our shit from our homes. Might as well.

And as for repeat offenders, ok. So? There is a broken, vicious cycle of incarceration and reincarceration in America. I understand that, I've argued it plenty of times before. But killing everyone who goes to jail is not the way to stop it. Actually giving an ex-con a chance at a decent job and education is the way to end that.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

Because that's not justice. That's revenge. And every person who supports the death penalty doesn't seem to understand that.


You dont seem to understand the fact that in this country alone, children ha
ve been praid on by pedophiles who get released early for good behaviour, now worst case scenario how would you feel if your child was killed or raped and the man that did that lived a comfortable life off of the tax payer and was released on so called good behaviour to do so again?.

It obviously costs more to shelter, clothe and feed a man for years then it is to kill him. But the solution to murder shouldn't be more death. Is the death of that killer going to bring back his victims? No.

True Statement but why should he live a good sheltered life and be out within ten years to do the deed to someone else?, death means that person can never pray on the week again.

You've just proven my point that most people in support of capital punishment do not understand the difference between revenge and justice.

Those people do understand that there are alot more scum out there walking the streets and committing sins without cause, weather it be trafficking, killing, raping murder and much much more, these people dont care if they get caught, they just go inside and come back out and pretend to be rehabilitated and re offend.

As for whether or not it can be classified as murder, of course it can. Someone is injecting that man with a chemical that kills him. It's murder. No different then a soldier shooting an enemy, it's all murder. I hate the fact that so many people seem to think that sometimes murder is acceptable in certain situations. Violence has never been the cure for more violence, and if Dr. King were around today he'd be the first to tell you that.

Again agreed, but you heard the term a life for a life, life imprisonment should mean life, prisoners should not be allowed to have rights and pleasures that most poor people dont even enjoy, the fact is corporate punishment should happen and it will send a message to every little idiot who thinks that gang banging is cool, that taking a life is apart of our society, that idolizing murders is a good thing, these people get book deals and tv specials and even films, should they get that...,No

And what exactly gives you or any other person the right to determine who does and doesn't deserve life? The fact that you say you'd take pleasure in watching someone die is rather disturbing, and quite frankly sadomasochistic.

What gives you the right to judge, unless you know the facts about the shit thats happening in society, you sit there on your high horse attempting to say that taking a life is wrong, what about the ones that take the lives with no remorse, the baby P incident in the uk, a women let a known pedophile in her house and he along with there lodger proceeded to beat and kill an innocent two year old boy, tortured him till his last breath whilst the mother watched and both her and the lodger get a minimum term whilst the pedophile will be out in ten years on good behaviour, with corperal punishment he will never hurt anyone again.

another incident, Jamie Buldger, a child who was abducted at a young age by two older youths, they proceeded to stick things up his anus made him sqwerm and cry and tortured the poor child until they threw his mangled body on the train tracks and left him to die as a train proceeded to run over his mangled body.

You know what they are doing, living new lives in a new country on the taxpayers dime, they should be rotting away in prison, or better yet dead, thats my opinion, I dont believe scum like that should be on this earth so they can kill and torture young souls, now judge me all you want, my just know the facts before you do a
nd put yourselves in the victims families shoes before you make your next statement

 

[FromTheSouth]

I dont understand that argument. So we kill more people in order to make the victims family feel minorly better for maybe two weeks?

I think the closure to a situation like that provides more resolution that two weeks worth. All I am saying is that the death penalty provides some sort of resolution. Nothing is going to bring the victim back, even life in prison. Now, capital punishment may very well be revenge. So? I mean that may seem a bit callous, extremely callous, but a bit of revenge doesn't seem to even come close to harms of the cold blooded murder. Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, and our entry into that war was for revenge. That revenge saved millions of lives. Revenge carries a negative connotation, but it's not all bad.

I believe everyone is redeemable, no one is just a mindless killing machine that can't be saved.

But rehabilitation is a waste if that person is never going to reenter society anyway.

What about the killer's family? Is it justice that they now no longer have their child? Even the sickest killers have people who care about them, and killing them is only going to hurt even more people.

I put the consequences faced by the family of a criminal on the criminal. Is it fair that children of a cold blooded killer don't get to be raised by that killer? I would say yes.

The purpose of the justice system is not to deal out petty revenge killings, because thats really all it is you're doing. Am I the only one that sees the absurdity in ENDING SOMEONE'S LIFE to make somebody feel better? To give them peace of mind? That's despicable to me. These are people, not monsters. They're made of the same flesh and blood as you are.

I would argue that a serial killer is as close to a monster as we can get this side of Toilken. I would argue that gang bangers that kill over "turf" are evil. I would argue that it is the justice system's duty to rid the state of evil.

Our justice system is not about reciprocity. Middle Eastern countries like Saudi Arabia use that system, in which they cut off your hand if you steal. That would be true reciprocity. If you rape a woman, you aren't sentenced to be raped now are you? But why not? Wouldn't it give the same "peace of mind" to the rape victims family?

I'm not talking about Hammurabi. I'm talking about John Locke. If you steal from someone you violate the social order. The only way to maintain this order is to restrict someone's rights in a way that balances the crime committed. A Lockean social contract theorist would argue that liberty and property are interchangeable rights, you can restrict liberty in accordance with a violation of property rights. When you take someone's life, there is no amount of liberty you can take from someone that balances order. Therefore, the death penalty seems morally just in an ordered society.

I get what you're saying and partially agree, but honestly I'm not sure what your reasons are for supporting capital punishment. Because it deters crime? You really think someone who's angry enough to get a gun and shoot someone is going to stop and think twice about the death penalty? Of course not. Nobody commits a crime thinking about getting caught, otherwise why would they have committed it in the first place?

When I was in high school, I was on the debate team, and one of the topics was about capital punishment. Basically it stated that murder is committed in one of two ways. Either with pre-meditation, where the penalties don't matter to you, or in the heat of passion. First of all, in heat of passion murders, the death penalty is rarely used. My state, Texas, has an express lane to the killing chamber. We don't generally define heat of passion murders as CAPITAL murder. To get capital punishment, you must get commit capital murder. In the cases of pre-meditated murder, a person considered the punishment, decided it was worth the risk, and committed the act. If someone didn't care that they might die, then I don't care if they live. Once again, callous, but I think in the long run the benefits outweight the harms.

And there really isn't any verifiable proof to back up the notion that the death penalty deters crime.

Tough to get someone to walk to the police and say, "I was going to go on a killing spree, but the idea of capital punishment deterred me." People don't steel because they might go to jail. If the thought of imprisonment is a deterrent, then the though of death, logically, follows suit.

The only difference between murder and "killing" is that murder is done purposely with the intent to kill. The only way it isn't murder is if you were to I don't know, accidently drop a paint can from a building and it kills someone down on the street below.

This is the square and rectangle argument. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder. Murder is a legal term defining how someone was killed. If the law separates the two (and it does, with terms such as homicide, accidental homicide, manslaughter, etc.), maybe we should functionally define murder and killing differently.

Everyone's opinon of murder is up to interpretation, but personally I consider any act of killing that is done purposely with the sole purpose of ending that person's life is murder. I'm not saying we should go and prosecute soldier's for killing enemy combatants, that'd be ridiculious.

Agreed.

Really, right into filling their body with bullets? Now how is that justice? If you believe in reciprocity, don't you think death is a bit extreme for breaking and entering, one of the most common crimes committed on Earth?

To protect my family, yes, really. If someone breaks and enters I don't know if they are unarmed or carrying a flame thrower, and I'm not sure if I had the time to figure it out.

I'm not saying you don't have the right to, it just seems like far too steep a punishment.

Right, but waiting to see if we are even footing weaponry wise might not be the best idea. I own guns because at some point I might have a life or death decision to make, and I want to be fully equipped to handle any situation.

Abortion is a tricky subject because theres really just no way at all to prove either side's argument. So instead we have endless bickering and never any ground given. I won't even go into abortion because a debate on abortion is just *********ion of your political ideologies.



Agreed completely there.

I was just trying to illustrate how loosely society differentiates murder and killing to fit their own ideology. I know you got that, but I want to keep the debate narrowed for other people. I just feel that capital punishment and abortion are very similar arguments and maybe if you got pro-choicers and pro-death penalty people in the same room it would be a riot. They would be calling each other murderers although both of their kills are state sanctioned.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Again, what you want is revenge, not justice. The justice system is not about revenge.

The justice system doesn't seem to be about justice anymore either. My definition of justice isn't serving half a sentence in conditions better than some would get outside, with sentences which are incredibly lenient in the first place. This is what I've been getting at. I DO want revenge, because you don't get justice anymore. I mean, recently a guy who raped a 2 year old and killed his step-child got 12 years. Is that justice? Until the justice system does just that, the death penalty is pretty appealing.

 

[X]

The justice system doesn't seem to be about justice anymore either. My definition of justice isn't serving half a sentence in conditions better than some would get outside, with sentences which are incredibly lenient in the first place.

What the hell are you talking about? "Conditions better than some would get outisde"? Sure, if outside you live in Darfur. Have you ever been to prison? I have. Let me tell you, as anyone who's ever been to prison would, that conditions inside a prison are about twelve million times worse then outside. Are you forgetting the fact that you're being imprisoned with hundreds/thousands of dangerous criminals in a building smaller then your average college campus? Those conditions sound good to you? Go tell that to the thousands upon thousands of people who have been raped in prison. Go tell that to the families of the thousands murdered in prison.

Besides, your definition of the justice system seems to assume that all criminals of any kind are beyond rehabilitation. Countless killers, thieves and others have turned their lives around, paid for their mistakes and taken responsibility for them, and gone on to make positive contributions to society.

This is what I've been getting at. I DO want revenge, because you don't get justice anymore. I mean, recently a guy who raped a 2 year old and killed his step-child got 12 years. Is that justice? Until the justice system does just that, the death penalty is pretty appealing.

For the ten millionth time, REVENGE IS NOT JUSTICE!.

Revenge is done to satisfy you personally, whereas justice is done to satisfy society as a whole.

You want a society that bases it's justice system on revenge? Sure, I'll give you some examples: Saudi Arabia (public beheadings!), Saddam Hussein controlled-Iraq, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, should I continue? Because I could. A justice system based on petty revenge is the first step to a militaristic/fascist government.

 

[HBK-aholic]

What the hell are you talking about? "Conditions better than some would get outisde"? Sure, if outside you live in Darfur. Have you ever been to prison? I have. Let me tell you, as anyone who's ever been to prison would, that conditions inside a prison are about twelve million times worse then outside. Are you forgetting the fact that you're being imprisoned with hundreds/thousands of dangerous criminals in a building smaller then your average college campus? Those conditions sound good to you? Go tell that to the thousands upon thousands of people who have been raped in prison. Go tell that to the families of the thousands murdered in prison.

There have been people who have ADMITTED commiting crimes to go to prison. I mean, 3 meals a day, a roof over your head, free time with games and TV? That would sound very appealing to someone struggling to survive on what they have outside. There are people who can't afford 3 meals a day, some don't even have a roof over their head. And with the luxuries they get now, can yuo not see why this would be appealing?

Besides, your definition of the justice system seems to assume that all criminals of any kind are beyond rehabilitation. Countless killers, thieves and others have turned their lives around, paid for their mistakes and taken responsibility for them, and gone on to make positive contributions to society.

I'm not denying that. But while they're inside paying for their crime..shouldn't they be doing that? Conditions were prisoners can play on a playstation and watch TV don't seem to be too hard for them. Besides, we're not talking about thieves going for the death penalty. And the killers who've 'turned their life around' shouldn't have had the chance outside of prison.

For the ten millionth time, REVENGE IS NOT JUSTICE!.

Revenge is done to satisfy you personally, whereas justice is done to satisfy society as a whole.

Did I not clearly differenciate between the two in my post? I said I DO want revenge for them, because nothing feels like justice. I don't think letting a child rapist and killer out in 12 years is 'satisfying society as a whole' do you? It's cases like that which make me WANT the death penalty, just so that they can't have the chance to be back in society.

You want a society that bases it's justice system on revenge? Sure, I'll give you some examples: Saudi Arabia (public beheadings!), Saddam Hussein controlled-Iraq, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, should I continue? Because I could. A justice system based on petty revenge is the first step to a militaristic/fascist government.

I want a justice system based on JUSTICE, yet in England do you think we have that? I can name countless cases were justice hasn't been served. In that frame of mind, can you blame anyone for thinking the death penalty would be good?

 

[X]

There have been people who have ADMITTED commiting crimes to go to prison. I mean, 3 meals a day, a roof over your head, free time with games and TV? That would sound very appealing to someone struggling to survive on what they have outside. There are people who can't afford 3 meals a day, some don't even have a roof over their head. And with the luxuries they get now, can yuo not see why this would be appealing?

So your argument against capital punishment is that sometimes homeless/poor people admit to crimes to go to prison? Right, that virtually makes prison Disneyland now doesn't it?

You don't know what you're talking about here. You forgot to mention between the "free time with games and TV" the always fun "beaten to death for a pack of cigarettes hour", or the "gangraped in the shower by neo-nazi's hour". Those are always fun right?

Prison is not at all comparable to the standard of living of your average citizen on the outside.

I'm not denying that. But while they're inside paying for their crime..shouldn't they be doing that? Conditions were prisoners can play on a playstation and watch TV don't seem to be too hard for them.

The only prisons in which you can play video games or watch TV would be a minimum-security prison. A type of prison which rarely if ever houses murderers. So you're argument here doesn't work.

Also, how does being imprisoned against your will not constitute "paying for your crime"? Do you think they're their voluntarily?

Besides, we're not talking about thieves going for the death penalty. And the killers who've 'turned their life around' shouldn't have had the chance outside of prison.

So your stance is that people aren't allowed to make mistakes?

You'd rather execute someone then give them rehabilitation and have them give back to society? That's completely illogical, and actually flies right in the face of your argument that you want prisoners to "pay for their crime". What about the gang members who go into prison, turn their life around, are released and then help to stop gang violence among youth? What about the countless social programs like these that actually help deter crime and more murder? You'd rather throw all of that out the window in exchange for another corpse? That, again, is not justice. It's petty revenge.

Did I not clearly differenciate between the two in my post? I said I DO want revenge for them, because nothing feels like justice. I don't think letting a child rapist and killer out in 12 years is 'satisfying society as a whole' do you? It's cases like that which make me WANT the death penalty, just so that they can't have the chance to be back in society.

You said you wanted revenge in the justice system. I was simply again pointing out that the justice system is not about revenge, it never has been or ever will be. The revenge system you want has been tried, I gave you several examples. You'd like a justice system more in line with Saudi Arabia?

I want a justice system based on JUSTICE, yet in England do you think we have that? I can name countless cases were justice hasn't been served. In that frame of mind, can you blame anyone for thinking the death penalty would be good?

Who the hell are you to determine what is and isn't justice? Have you studied individual cases inside and out, heard countless hours of testimony? You're not qualified to determine what is and isn't justice.

As for the baby-rape case you keep bringing up, no that's not justice, they should definately have served more time. But guess what? That's the prosecuting lawyer's fault, not the entire justice system's. Blame him, not the system.

 

[HBK-aholic]

So your argument against capital punishment is that sometimes homeless/poor people admit to crimes to go to prison? Right, that virtually makes prison Disneyland now doesn't it?

You don't know what you're talking about here. You forgot to mention between the "free time with games and TV" the always fun "beaten to death for a pack of cigarettes hour", or the "gangraped in the shower by neo-nazi's hour". Those are always fun right?

Prison is not at all comparable to the standard of living of your average citizen on the outside.

Average - exactly. There are always people below that. I'm not saying it's a majority, simply that people do commit crimes to gain a prison sentence, because to a few it's seen as an easy ride. And it sure as hell looks that way on the outside. As you said, bad things happen. But they're hardly publicised - to some prison would still seem like an easier choice. They need to make prison tougher.

The only prisons in which you can play video games or watch TV would be a minimum-security prison. A type of prison which rarely if ever houses murderers. So you're argument here doesn't work.

Does it matter? I'm not talking about only murderers here. Everyone that's commited a crime - do you think this is fair?

Also, how does being imprisoned against your will not constitute "paying for your crime"? Do you think they're their voluntarily?

Not voluntarily, just there are too many perks.

So your stance is that people aren't allowed to make mistakes?

Not in the case of murder, no. Their 'mistake' cost someone else their life, they don't get a second chance, so why should the murderer? I'm not even talking about capital punishment here, rotting in jail would be fine.

You'd rather execute someone then give them rehabilitation and have them give back to society? That's completely illogical, and actually flies right in the face of your argument that you want prisoners to "pay for their crime". What about the gang members who go into prison, turn their life around, are released and then help to stop gang violence among youth? What about the countless social programs like these that actually help deter crime and more murder? You'd rather throw all of that out the window in exchange for another corpse? That, again, is not justice. It's petty revenge.

Again, not necessarily the death penalty. I said in my first post I'd prefer prisons to actually give a life sentence. If that happened, what would the point of a death penalty? And if those gang members murdered someone, then no, I don't think they should get a chance to leave prison. It's not fair.

You said you wanted revenge in the justice system. I was simply again pointing out that the justice system is not about revenge, it never has been or ever will be. The revenge system you want has been tried, I gave you several examples. You'd like a justice system more in line with Saudi Arabia?

I said I want revenge because their isn't justice. As I've said countless times, if they sort the justice system out, I wouldn't agree with the death penalty.

Who the hell are you to determine what is and isn't justice? Have you studied individual cases inside and out, heard countless hours of testimony? You're not qualified to determine what is and isn't justice.

As for the baby-rape case you keep bringing up, no that's not justice, they should definately have served more time. But guess what? That's the prosecuting lawyer's fault, not the entire justice system's. Blame him, not the system.

It's the fault of whichever judge gave that sentence. You've agreed with me that they should have served more time, and it isn't justice. Which is EXACTLY my point. That needs to change. Can you blame people thinking someone like him should be killed when his other option is only 12 years?

 

[X]

Average - exactly. There are always people below that. I'm not saying it's a majority, simply that people do commit crimes to gain a prison sentence, because to a few it's seen as an easy ride.

So an incredibly miniscule amount of people well under the poverty line attempt to go to prison for 3 meals a day and a bed. So what? Some people fine pleasure from pain, does that make pain a pleasurable thing?

I don't get what you're going for here. Should we not be giving prisoners a place to sleep and three meals a day? (humorously enough, a select few prisons actually have begun to serve only two meals a day)

And it sure as hell looks that way on the outside. As you said, bad things happen. But they're hardly publicised - to some prison would still seem like an easier choice.

Where on Earth is prison seen as an "easier choice"? Prison life has been notoriously examined in both film and television shows, from Oz to Midnight Express. Or the fact that "dropping the soap" jokes have been used in probably ten million different comedies. Tnere isn't a place on Earth where prison is seen as an easy place to live. Quite the opposite, the media if anything goes into extreme hyperbole when examining prison life.

They need to make prison tougher.

I'm sorry, but what the fuck would you know about how prison life is? Have you been to prison? No. So you have no idea what you're talking about.

Does it matter? I'm not talking about only murderers here. Everyone that's commited a crime - do you think this is fair?

Sure it is. Are you really opposed to something so unimportant as video game use among prisoners? Seriously? How could that possibly effect anyone in any way? If a prisoner wants to play 20 minutes of a video game in a day while they're being IMPRISONED AGAINST THEIR WILL then I say let him. Prison is already terrible enough, you can't give a prisoner 20 minutes a day to play a game? Should we take away cards and board games too? How about we don't give 'em books either, that might entertain some of them as well right? And while they're going insane from this environment, let's just not give them any medical treatment either while we're at it.

Is that tough enough to meet your prison standards? Should we just start calling them Gulags now?

Not voluntarily, just there are too many perks.

And you would again now this how? You have never been to prison. You do not know what prison is like. End of discussion.

Not in the case of murder, no. Their 'mistake' cost someone else their life, they don't get a second chance, so why should the murderer? I'm not even talking about capital punishment here, rotting in jail would be fine.

Again, what you have just given is a perfect example of why this is about revenge and NOT justice. You want to see someone killed because it will make you feel better. That's not justice, and it's certainly not a solution to someone taking another's life.

If you want a system based on revenge, move out of the UK.

Again, not necessarily the death penalty. I said in my first post I'd prefer prisons to actually give a life sentence. If that happened, what would the point of a death penalty? And if those gang members murdered someone, then no, I don't think they should get a chance to leave prison. It's not fair.

If you'd prefer life sentences then why are you arguing for the death penalty right now?

I said I want revenge because their isn't justice. As I've said countless times, if they sort the justice system out, I wouldn't agree with the death penalty.

Again, then why are you sitting here and arguing for the death penalty and revenge in the justice system? I feel like I just keep asking you this, and you just keep dancing around it. If you want this true reciprocal revenge thing, then I'll assume you'd also support rapists being raped as punishment?

It's the fault of whichever judge gave that sentence. You've agreed with me that they should have served more time, and it isn't justice. Which is EXACTLY my point. That needs to change. Can you blame people thinking someone like him should be killed when his other option is only 12 years?

It's not the judge's fault. Just like your average wrestling referee, the judge can only call what he can see. It's up to the lawyer's to present the largest scope of evidence that they can and present their case.

But just because one case slipped through the case doesn't mean the justice system doesn't work. For every one of those cases, there are ten more exactly like them in which justice was served. The justice system can't be perfect, it's just not humanly possible.

 

[Gelgarin]

To answer the original question; I'm strongly against the death penalty. Society has the right to protect its self from harm, but it doesn't have the right the be vengeful. I may have stolen that line from a West Wing episode, but its about as good a summery of my opinion as I could produce.

Unless we instituted a regime of stringing up people who illegally park their cars, then I see no evidence of it serving as a criminal deterrent. More or less everyone who commits what would be considered in the 'civilized' world as a capital crime, either;

a) Lives their life under the thread of a far less pleasant death anyway. (See, gang kingpins and similar)

or

b) Is, for lack of a better word, mentally fucked up, to be beyond the point of making a rational cost benefit analysis.

Nobody sees ten years in prison as some sort of holiday camp trip, and no minor leisure perks are going to change that. Prison is a horrible, horrible place, and I've yet to encounter a case of anyone being sent there and coming out saying anything different.Through my writing I'm connected with the majority of the publishing body off Inside Times (the UK prison newspaper) and the number of horror stories that turn my stomach...
A certain cross section of society might feel better if we stripped out the rec room and the library, removed all leisure time, banned socialisation and flogged prisoners every day, but it wouldn't do any good. I'm pretty certain that Dutch prison studies have pretty much proved that all the things I've listed help to reduce violence inside institutions and aid rehabilitation rates.

Which brings me on to my critical point. Prison is a place to detain criminals. If a person is no longer criminal then there is very little reason to keep them in prison, asides from making the tabloid readers of the country feel better and costing me money. It costs £40,000 to keep somebody inside, and pretty much every study done says that lowering the living conditions will raise re-offending rates and, by influence, cost society more, both in money and suffering. The knowledge that people who are of no threat to me are locked in a box doesn't make me feel better, and I don't much like the idea of having to pay for it. Personally I think we should be shipping these people off to Ethiopia to provide foreign aid for a few years, but I appreciate that there may be a few practical problems there.

So yes, society has a right to protect its self from criminals, but it doesn't have a right to be vengeful for the soul sake of self satisfaction.

 

[HBK-aholic]

So an incredibly miniscule amount of people well under the poverty line attempt to go to prison for 3 meals a day and a bed. So what? Some people fine pleasure from pain, does that make pain a pleasurable thing?

I don't get what you're going for here. Should we not be giving prisoners a place to sleep and three meals a day? (humorously enough, a select few prisons actually have begun to serve only two meals a day)

The original point was simply that it's seen as something where you can go and get all those things. We just kind of over exagerated the point by discussing it so much.

Where on Earth is prison seen as an "easier choice"? Prison life has been notoriously examined in both film and television shows, from Oz to Midnight Express. Or the fact that "dropping the soap" jokes have been used in probably ten million different comedies. Tnere isn't a place on Earth where prison is seen as an easy place to live. Quite the opposite, the media if anything goes into extreme hyperbole when examining prison life.

Jokes, though. While there are some prisons no doubt like that, as you said before, the minimum security ones aren't.

I'm sorry, but what the fuck would you know about how prison life is? Have you been to prison? No. So you have no idea what you're talking about.

This is such a pointless argument, are you not going to debate anyone who hasn't been to prison? I apologise for not breaking the law. This is just like saying you can't say a wrestler is bad because you haven't been in the business.

Sure it is. Are you really opposed to something so unimportant as video game use among prisoners? Seriously? How could that possibly effect anyone in any way? If a prisoner wants to play 20 minutes of a video game in a day while they're being IMPRISONED AGAINST THEIR WILL then I say let him. Prison is already terrible enough, you can't give a prisoner 20 minutes a day to play a game? Should we take away cards and board games too? How about we don't give 'em books either, that might entertain some of them as well right? And while they're going insane from this environment, let's just not give them any medical treatment either while we're at it.

Is that tough enough to meet your prison standards? Should we just start calling them Gulags now?

I suppose we have to give them medical care, but yeah I think that meets my standards

Again, what you have just given is a perfect example of why this is about revenge and NOT justice. You want to see someone killed because it will make you feel better. That's not justice, and it's certainly not a solution to someone taking another's life.

I'd say what's better for society (Which is justice, right?) is not allowing murderers and rapists back on the streets.

If you'd prefer life sentences then why are you arguing for the death penalty right now?

Again, then why are you sitting here and arguing for the death penalty and revenge in the justice system? I feel like I just keep asking you this, and you just keep dancing around it.

If you read my first post properly, I said I'd only agree with the death penalty for the moment, until prisons implemented real sentences which are for life. Which is something I've stuck to throughout this debate.

If you want this true reciprocal revenge thing, then I'll assume you'd also support rapists being raped as punishment?

That's no where near be good enough. Definately rotting in jail for the rest of their life with the minimum they need to survive.

It's not the judge's fault. Just like your average wrestling referee, the judge can only call what he can see. It's up to the lawyer's to present the largest scope of evidence that they can and present their case.

But just because one case slipped through the case doesn't mean the justice system doesn't work. For every one of those cases, there are ten more exactly like them in which justice was served. The justice system can't be perfect, it's just not humanly possible.

True, but there also seems to be more and more cases where justice isn't served. Especially one as horrific as I brought up, it just leads me to ask what you DO need to do to get a maximum sentence. It isn't equal and it isn't fair.

 

[X]

The original point was simply that it's seen as something where you can go and get all those things. We just kind of over exagerated the point by discussing it so much.

Okay, I get what you're saying, but how is your original point even relevent to this discussion in any way in the first place? Of course it's seen as a place where you can get 3 meals a day and a place to sleep, those are two very basic components in being a living person.

Jokes, though. While there are some prisons no doubt like that, as you said before, the minimum security ones aren't.

And most minimum security prisons do not hold violent first-degree murderers. Minimum security prison is full of psychopaths as well. The only "murderers" that are going to be at a minimum security prison are cases like a drunk driving accident. Someone who shoots somebody in the face isn't about to be shipped off to minimum security; that's the entire point of minimum security. It's you're white-collar non-violent criminals that don't require as much security as other prisons.

So again, not to sound rude, but you don't know what you're talking about.

This is such a pointless argument, are you not going to debate anyone who hasn't been to prison? I apologise for not breaking the law. This is just like saying you can't say a wrestler is bad because you haven't been in the business.

That analogy doesn't make any sense. Not being able to say a wrestler is bad because you haven't been in the business is about you being qualified to critique that wrestler's ability.

But you're not critiquing prison life, you're telling us that it's an easy place to go to. But you truly aren't qualified to make that assessment, because you haven't been to prison.

Do you see the difference between those two?

I'd say what's better for society (Which is justice, right?) is not allowing murderers and rapists back on the streets.

Which again implies that you believe no one is redeemable. That's a rather bleak viewpoint on life, don't you think? Gelgarin's post made several fantastic points that address this better then I could, so I'll refer you to his post.

If you read my first post properly, I said I'd only agree with the death penalty for the moment, until prisons implemented real sentences which are for life. Which is something I've stuck to throughout this debate.

Again, read Gelgarin's previous post. He summed up some of the faults in that viewpoint.

Rehabilitation is the better route in every way imaginable. Studies have shown time and time again that rehabilitation lowers crime rates.

That's no where near be good enough. Definately rotting in jail for the rest of their life with the minimum they need to survive.

So then why support the death penalty at the present time? You say you want an eye-for-an-eye, kill and then be killed. That's reciprocal. Punished by the same crime you committed being committed onto you.

True, but there also seems to be more and more cases where justice isn't served. Especially one as horrific as I brought up, it just leads me to ask what you DO need to do to get a maximum sentence. It isn't equal and it isn't fair.

Like I said before, it's really up to the lawyers. They're the ones who are making the case for their respective sides of the argument.

 

[Goberz2K8]

Because that's not justice. That's revenge. And every person who supports the death penalty doesn't seem to understand that.



It obviously costs more to shelter, clothe and feed a man for years then it is to kill him. But the solution to murder shouldn't be more death. Is the death of that killer going to bring back his victims? No.



You've just proven my point that most people in support of capital punishment do not understand the difference between revenge and justice.

As for whether or not it can be classified as murder, of course it can. Someone is injecting that man with a chemical that kills him. It's murder. No different then a soldier shooting an enemy, it's all murder. I hate the fact that so many people seem to think that sometimes murder is acceptable in certain situations. Violence has never been the cure for more violence, and if Dr. King were around today he'd be the first to tell you that.



And what exactly gives you or any other person the right to determine who does and doesn't deserve life? The fact that you say you'd take pleasure in watching someone die is rather disturbing, and quite frankly sadomasochistic.

Normally I would disagree, becuase in some circumstances I would believe it to be right. But than, I can see where your coming from, it can be justice/revenge on the affected party as well as, the people around, but then can also be seen as revenge. But, I think killing someone in Self-Defense such as, if someone tries to hurt you, or kill you or Rape you, then if you somehow, on the unfortunate occaision Kill them, then it is perfectly justifiable...of course if you can rpove it was self-defense.

 

[Azrael Cain]

There are some people who do not deserve to live.
And there are some people who fell on hard times and did something they shouldn't have.
And then there are people who are a product of their environment and a belief and value system that guarantees them a place in the prison system.

On a philosophical level, no one life is worth more than another. A lawyer is no more important than a beggar and a teacher is no less important than a doctor or supreme court justice, and ergo a criminal is no more or less important in the scheme of things. Everyone is equal.

But that idea can quickly be shot straight to hell, so let's not harp on it.

In regards to capital punishment, I believe that the punishment should fit the crime and should take into account the circutsmances under which the crime was committed. Not the mental state of the defendant, or some other cock-a-maine defense; just the bare facts. There is usually a reason for everything in this life, and any act is based upon only one action: the desire to have something (usually something that someone else has).

If a stranger broke into my house, raped and killed my family, I would want to know why these things were done. And then I would want the appropriate, for a lack of a better word, retribution -- be it life imprisonment, psychiatric facility, punitive damages... but taking the life of someone else is an act I could never condone or take part in, or allow someone to do on my behalf.

I follow one golden rule in this life: treat others the way you'd want to be treated.

If I were in the position of the criminal, I would want to live.

No one wants to die. No one -- not a doctor, not a lawyer, not a teacher, not a supreme court justice, and not a criminal. And so no one should have to, not to satisfy some absurd notions of "justice" or "revenge" or anything else. Violence begets more violence, and killing only begets more killing.

And as far as today's prison system goes, while I know very little about it, I would say this one thing: there needs to be less focus on locking up thousands of dangerous people in one place together and more focus on trying to sincerely help these individuals. Those that cannot be helped and/or deserve the following action, need to be taken out to the woodshed and receive a slug behind the ear, point blank. Those than can be helped, however, should be helped. Currently, all we're doing is feeding the cycle.

 

[NYSandman]

I only have one problem with it. How many times have we seen some poor bastard rot in jail for 15 years, waiting for death, and then new evidence comes out that shows he didn't do it.

Most of these cases date back to a time before DNA, so I think it would happen less now. But, it would be a terrible travesty to execute someone and then find out later they were innocent.

I do think people who commit certain crimes should just be put to death. I'm tired of having my tax money go to keep some guy fed and clothed for 50 years. It makes no sense. Prison is a living death, even though I've never been, I know it's bad.

I, personally, would rather die than spend the rest of my life being told when to eat, shit, exercise, whatever. That's not any kind of life.

However, until a method is discovered to make absolutely sure someone is guilty, I think we need to suspend this. Too many innocent people are going to jail because of shitty police work, or the cops just wanting to close the case and not really giving a shit.

But, a guy who confesses or is caught in the act? Kill the fucker. And, if it turns out later his confession was false, who cares? If you're dumb enough to cop to a murder you didn't do, you deserve what you get. Wire up my testicles to a nuclear power plant. I'm not confessing to any shit I didn't do.