155 replies to this topic

[Ghostrider]

Chyros, on 28 Jan 2011, 21:10, said:

deltaepsilon, on 29 Jan 2011, 1:05, said:

However, replying to what Chyros said, if the life sentence is going to result in death anyway, wouldn't it just be faster and cheaper to give out the death sentence? The tax payer contributes a considerable amount to keeping these hardcore criminals well fed - despite how much they've taken out of society, they're still being supported by society, which seems rather ironic really.

No, research has shown that being born is actually even more likely to result in death than anything else. I mean seriously, life sentences just mean that you live out your life in a separate society, not more. All this talk of life sentence boiling down to death makes no sense at all to me.

Lol at first sentence there, Chyros.

There's also another very large distinction that I don't think has been mentioned here, and that is the punishment aspect. If I commit a crime and my punishment is to live the rest of my days in prison, that is very different than being sentenced to death (which is typically much sooner).

[deltaepsilon]

Chyros, on 29 Jan 2011, 13:10, said:

No, research has shown that being born is actually even more likely to result in death than anything else.

WHAT. And here I was, under the impression that I'd be alive for ever. Thanks for finally opening my eyes.

[Golan]

Boidy, on 28 Jan 2011, 20:25, said:

I said I'll gladly debate later but I lied. We aren't going to come to an agreement because what is a life worth living apparently differs in our views. In mine, were I serving a life sentence, the only thing preventing me from saying "kill me now" would be fear of death. An irrational fear, in my opinion, knowing that it is coming anyway at the end of a longer stretch of the same road I'm already on. I know that I am not the only one that feels this way, but I also know that many others disagree. This is why I originally meant to make an economics-centered argument, but as I feared, you can't see it because you are still hung up on the moral dilemma, whereas I view the penalty as neither moral or immoral.

So... have fun.

Other issues aside from morality have been raised so far, for example its efficiency as a deterrent or validity as punishment, most of which could disqualify death penalty from being anything else than a way to clean house.
The issue of economics was already addressed by AJ and Alias. You yourself have declared it void unless the moral aspect is properly analyzed, only noting that the process could be "streamlined". Which is kind of a hollow argument seeing how many people on death row have been found falsely convicted some decades later.

[n5p29]

well, here goes my opinion.
I see death penalty still a legit punishment. if someone commit a big crime, a death sentence is a possible option beside life-long sentence. me myself see these two sentences are really different.

here I'm assuming the stated person is really guilty. I step aside the "not guilty" cases.
it seems that making a guilty imprisoned for rest of his life is crueler than death sentence. but some people might change (except some are really persistent). depending on the person, while in imprisonment they might had remorse of what they did. that's a lot better than execute the person right away and become unrest. at least you still can save one more soul. (I still have religious part of myself, so I see it this way).

so I think death penalty is not for first option. but in some cases there's sometimes death penalty is preferable. like a fanatic terrorist or psychotic mass murderer who can't be helped again even they're imprisoned for a long time.

Edited by n5p29, 29 January 2011 - 14:19.

[Ghostrider]

n5p29, on 29 Jan 2011, 9:18, said:

so I think death penalty is not for first option. but in some cases there's sometimes death penalty is preferable. like a fanatic terrorist or psychotic mass murderer who can't be helped again even they're imprisoned for a long time.

Hmm, but wouldn't life spent in a cell be a more fitting punishment? Killing someone means they suffer for a less amount of time.

[Destiny]

The amount of hatred for someone who takes someone's life away cannot be explained, IMO. If the person is still alive, you'd want him dead as revenge and shoit.








...I don't want to talk about soldiers, though.

[Chyros]

Destiny, on 30 Jan 2011, 6:06, said:

The amount of hatred for someone who takes someone's life away cannot be explained, IMO. If the person is still alive, you'd want him dead as revenge and shoit.

That's a vicious cycle though, isn't it?

[Ghostrider]

Chyros, on 30 Jan 2011, 5:09, said:

Destiny, on 30 Jan 2011, 6:06, said:

The amount of hatred for someone who takes someone's life away cannot be explained, IMO. If the person is still alive, you'd want him dead as revenge and shoit.

That's a vicious cycle though, isn't it?

I'd argue it's even more vengeful to put them in a cell for life, with no contact to society and no chance of ever having the luxuries you or I could have.

[Golan]

Unless we know what the afterlife is like, I doubt that question can be thoroughly answered. Killing someone before their time has come might rob them of any chance to come to terms with what they did or atone for it.

Edited by Golan, 30 January 2011 - 14:24.

[n5p29]

Ghostrider, on 30 Jan 2011, 1:34, said:

n5p29, on 29 Jan 2011, 9:18, said:

so I think death penalty is not for first option. but in some cases there's sometimes death penalty is preferable. like a fanatic terrorist or psychotic mass murderer who can't be helped again even they're imprisoned for a long time.

Hmm, but wouldn't life spent in a cell be a more fitting punishment? Killing someone means they suffer for a less amount of time.

well, either way they're screwed up.
after reading several related materials, I see it's really depends on the applied laws in the place. death sentences are more preferable for the ones who "spreading mischief in the land" aka crimes that affect the community as a whole and destabilize the society, like terrorism.
I also see, for this issue (spreading mischief thing), religious places prefer death sentence because they think it's more "humane way" than keeping the person in jail for the rest of his life for nothing particular. while some other place prefer the second way because it's a greater punishment.

[Chyros]

n5p29, on 30 Jan 2011, 17:14, said:

Ghostrider, on 30 Jan 2011, 1:34, said:

n5p29, on 29 Jan 2011, 9:18, said:

so I think death penalty is not for first option. but in some cases there's sometimes death penalty is preferable. like a fanatic terrorist or psychotic mass murderer who can't be helped again even they're imprisoned for a long time.

Hmm, but wouldn't life spent in a cell be a more fitting punishment? Killing someone means they suffer for a less amount of time.

well, either way they're screwed up.
after reading several related materials, I see it's really depends on the applied laws in the place. death sentences are more preferable for the ones who "spreading mischief in the land" aka crimes that affect the community as a whole and destabilize the society, like terrorism.
I also see, for this issue (spreading mischief thing), religious places prefer death sentence because they think it's more "humane way" than keeping the person in jail for the rest of his life for nothing particular. while some other place prefer the second way because it's a greater punishment.

I think most people that are in favour of life imprisonment don't chiefly think so because it's a bigger punishment, but because taking someone else's life is something that nobody should have the right to.

[Mbob61]

n5p29, on 29 Jan 2011, 14:18, said:

well, here goes my opinion.
I see death penalty still a legit punishment. if someone commit a big crime, a death sentence is a possible option beside life-long sentence. me myself see these two sentences are really different.

here I'm assuming the stated person is really guilty. I step aside the "not guilty" cases.

The issue is, if I remember the quote rightly, in order for a person to be deemed "guilty" in court, it has to be beyond "any reasonable doubt?"
Therefore, in theory everyone is "really guilty" at the time they are convicted. Its not until a lot later when new evidence comes out that they are found not guilty.
Thats the main issue with streamlining the process which someone suggested. If they are executed too quickly, by the time the new evidence comes to light, its too late and an innocent person has been put to death.

At least if they are simply in prison, they still have some of their life to go back to.

Mike

Edited by Mbob61, 30 January 2011 - 19:36.

[Areze]

I'm seeing a bit of a contradiction here.

Let's call the people Against A.

A says that capital punishment or whatever you want to call it) is barbaric.

Than they say that holding them in prison at the public's expense is a worse (to the criminal) punishment, and should be encouraged.

wat

Call me the forum barbarian, but I support the death penalty. Not as recklessly used as it is now, and while it may be more expensive here, it's worth pointing out that our whole prison system is ass-backwards, and in need of reform. I don;t support prison as punishment. I support it to keep the serious whack-jobs from hurting other people to get it up or make stupid amounts of money or whatever. What I would support would be:

1. Reform the system and streamline costs. The reason so much of it costs so much is bureaucratic red-tape. Get rid of it.

2. Minor crimes have their 'punishments' (again, call it what you want) reduced. Prison sentences for smoking weed is ridiculous.

3. For those that are too far gone, like serial murderers & rapists, crime/drug lords, etc., kill them. Call me a sociopath, but I have a damn hard time valuing the life of someone who doesn't value my life or those of other people. Maybe its barbaric, if if they're dead, than they can no longer commit they're crimes. With the system being reformed and streamlined, the worse the crime, the higher up the waiting list. A firing squad, trained for executions will do. With the minor shit no longer being so excessively punished, the prisons here won;t be so ridiculously overpopulated*.

* More on this. This is one of the biggest reasons why I do not support a total life setances. We already have them here. They don't work. Our prisons are overflowing, and we are running out of places to put them. Most of them haven't really done anything bad. Potheads, really, Drunk Drivers (throw the drunks in rehab and make sure the potheads aren't driving while stoned and there you go).

There has been mentions of the issue of mistaken executions. I'm not saying that if they are suspected, they should be taken out, only if they are known. If being kept for life in prison is so bloody bad, if they were wrongly convicted, wouldn't the damage be worse? Because if I was wrongly accused, I'd tell them to pull the plug instead of letting me deal with PTSD or whatever would rear its ugly head.



TLDR:

I support the death penalty as the very last resort. Of those who simply cannot be saved, get rid of them. If they regret their punishments, then there's still hope. Have professionals analyze them and give the person being held some time for clear away all doubt whether or not they can be helped or if they will start murdering the instant they get back out. Streamline the system to cut down on the costs (we badly need it over here) and reduce the punishments for minor infractions. We need to reduce the prison population in the US, not increase it.

[Golan]

Areze, on 30 Jan 2011, 20:43, said:

I'm seeing a bit of a contradiction here.

Let's call the people Against A.

A says that capital punishment or whatever you want to call it) is barbaric.

Than they say that holding them in prison at the public's expense is a worse (to the criminal) punishment, and should be encouraged.

There is a difference in the severity of the action and the punishment that derives from it.
The action of killing another is severe - its the ultimate form of dominating another being, making every wish, every skill, every feature of the other person void, forever irreversible. Yet it means only little as a punishment, having no long term effects the condemned actually experiences and being more of a release from punishment.

I would however like to point out that not all people share both views, and in fact the arguments work very well on their own. Which one is the appropriate argument is a matter of what a person considers the goal of the sentence.

[Libains]

Mbob61, on 30 Jan 2011, 19:35, said:

n5p29, on 29 Jan 2011, 14:18, said:

well, here goes my opinion.
I see death penalty still a legit punishment. if someone commit a big crime, a death sentence is a possible option beside life-long sentence. me myself see these two sentences are really different.

here I'm assuming the stated person is really guilty. I step aside the "not guilty" cases.

The issue is, if I remember the quote rightly, in order for a person to be deemed "guilty" in court, it has to be beyond "any reasonable doubt?"
Therefore, in theory everyone is "really guilty" at the time they are convicted. Its not until a lot later when new evidence comes out that they are found not guilty.

You're quite right, that is the exact quote. The reasonable doubt has to be that of the jury, or that of the judge or the magistrate presiding. The problem is that nothing is ever perfect, and there will always be times in which the evidence makes something beyond reasonable doubt, but it's not concrete. There's a fine distinction, but it's one that needs to be looked at when people just presume that the law can capably deal with anyone people think is guilty. Further, I'd dare you to try and execute anyone in this country these days. The only crime for which execution is still allowed is treason. You'd probably start with your case in the High Court. You lose, you go to the Court of Appeal. You lose again, you go to the Supreme Court. You lose again, you go to the European Court of Justice. You win. End of story. The ECJ will not allow an execution on the grounds of Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights (the right to life). Now, think about how much money the Crown and the Criminal Prosecution Service have spent trying to get you executed. It's in the millions, and millions. And they'd lose, every time (not that they could apply more than once, the ECJ's ruling will be final for all executions on the grounds of treason). The law will simply not allow it in any way, shape, or form, and it would cost the taxpayer in the region of £10million to try, for shits and giggles. As long as the UK is a part of the European Union, there is no way that it can use the death penalty. At the end of the day, ethics barely come into it here. Obviously, that's not the same for the US, but that's for another day.

[Areze]

Golan, on 30 Jan 2011, 17:47, said:

Areze, on 30 Jan 2011, 20:43, said:

I'm seeing a bit of a contradiction here.

Let's call the people Against A.

A says that capital punishment or whatever you want to call it) is barbaric.

Than they say that holding them in prison at the public's expense is a worse (to the criminal) punishment, and should be encouraged.

There is a difference in the severity of the action and the punishment that derives from it.
The action of killing another is severe - its the ultimate form of dominating another being, making every wish, every skill, every feature of the other person void, forever irreversible. Yet it means only little as a punishment, having no long term effects the condemned actually experiences and being more of a release from punishment.

I would however like to point out that not all people share both views, and in fact the arguments work very well on their own. Which one is the appropriate argument is a matter of what a person considers the goal of the sentence.

I realize this, and to and extent agree.

My arguement is that I support capital punishment not to punish whomever, but to ultimately prevent them from harming someone else. Murders and rapes in prison happen here all the time, and often to people who aren't in for serious crimes. If nothing else, my reasoning is that capital punishment not in the way we have it here now, which is just silly, can be used to prevent them from harming a prisoner who doesn't deserve such punishment.

I will grant that I am somewhat of a fence-sitter. I can see why people would disapprove of the death penalty, and sometimes I question myself on the issue (something many people should do more often, IMO). It's just my opinion.

[GuardianTempest]

Damn wish I can say this in my social studies recitation.

Opinion:
Death Penalty is only favored by those who are related to the victim(or those who view that guy as 'Ok that's it you die nao') as a form of Revenge, while not being favored by those who aren't.

The way to fix this is to give out a harsher, non-lethal punishment that isn't as lax as Imprisonment. I'm thinking of Public Slavery where the criminal is forced to serve the country in a hard tough-love way. Should they disobey and they will be punished(I don't know how....shock movie marathon?) and suffer torment until they LITERALLY kneel down and start crying as they beg for mercy and freedom. Then they will earn their freedom with a mental scar reminding them to never commit a crime again. Should they try to act their way out will first have to pass an intense 'egg-breaking' mental detection test to see if they are lying.

Or have them 're-educated'.

Also lighter punishments will only land them some form of 'reprimand/sermon/algebra scolding'...in a school-thing. But there are some things that pretty much justifies death penalty.

Discipline with a stone wall with unbelievably good rewards.
Me and my crazy ideas...

[Alias]

How exactly is imprisonment 'lax'?

[GuardianTempest]

Well actually I don't clearly know the proper definition of 'lax'...I just though it was somehow synonymous with 'laid-back'.
And I think imprisonment is just some near-eternal limbo where you pretty much are stuck in one thing.

[Chyros]

GuardianTempest, on 4 Feb 2011, 10:51, said:

Well actually I don't clearly know the proper definition of 'lax'...I just though it was somehow synonymous with 'laid-back'.
And I think imprisonment is just some near-eternal limbo where you pretty much are stuck in one thing.

Well Limbo IS a layer of Hell for a reason...

[Ghostrider]

Chyros, on 30 Jan 2011, 11:05, said:

n5p29, on 30 Jan 2011, 17:14, said:

Ghostrider, on 30 Jan 2011, 1:34, said:

n5p29, on 29 Jan 2011, 9:18, said:

so I think death penalty is not for first option. but in some cases there's sometimes death penalty is preferable. like a fanatic terrorist or psychotic mass murderer who can't be helped again even they're imprisoned for a long time.

Hmm, but wouldn't life spent in a cell be a more fitting punishment? Killing someone means they suffer for a less amount of time.

well, either way they're screwed up.
after reading several related materials, I see it's really depends on the applied laws in the place. death sentences are more preferable for the ones who "spreading mischief in the land" aka crimes that affect the community as a whole and destabilize the society, like terrorism.
I also see, for this issue (spreading mischief thing), religious places prefer death sentence because they think it's more "humane way" than keeping the person in jail for the rest of his life for nothing particular. while some other place prefer the second way because it's a greater punishment.

I think most people that are in favour of life imprisonment don't chiefly think so because it's a bigger punishment, but because taking someone else's life is something that nobody should have the right to.

I'd agree Chyros. I stated what I did above because I personally feel that guaranteed imprisonment for life is worse than a death sentence. It's one of the reasons I don't support the death sentence, as odd as it may be to look at it that way.

What I think would be incredibly interesting to see implemented is a choice for the prisoners, either you serve life in prison or choose the death penalty.

[Chyros]

Ghostrider, on 4 Feb 2011, 20:16, said:

Chyros, on 30 Jan 2011, 11:05, said:

n5p29, on 30 Jan 2011, 17:14, said:

Ghostrider, on 30 Jan 2011, 1:34, said:

n5p29, on 29 Jan 2011, 9:18, said:

so I think death penalty is not for first option. but in some cases there's sometimes death penalty is preferable. like a fanatic terrorist or psychotic mass murderer who can't be helped again even they're imprisoned for a long time.

Hmm, but wouldn't life spent in a cell be a more fitting punishment? Killing someone means they suffer for a less amount of time.

well, either way they're screwed up.
after reading several related materials, I see it's really depends on the applied laws in the place. death sentences are more preferable for the ones who "spreading mischief in the land" aka crimes that affect the community as a whole and destabilize the society, like terrorism.
I also see, for this issue (spreading mischief thing), religious places prefer death sentence because they think it's more "humane way" than keeping the person in jail for the rest of his life for nothing particular. while some other place prefer the second way because it's a greater punishment.

I think most people that are in favour of life imprisonment don't chiefly think so because it's a bigger punishment, but because taking someone else's life is something that nobody should have the right to.

I'd agree Chyros. I stated what I did above because I personally feel that guaranteed imprisonment for life is worse than a death sentence. It's one of the reasons I don't support the death sentence, as odd as it may be to look at it that way.

What I think would be incredibly interesting to see implemented is a choice for the prisoners, either you serve life in prison or choose the death penalty.

I'm convinced it would depend heavily on the culture of the country the criminal would be from as to what they'd choose. But I agree, it would be very interesting... though imhumane, in my opinion. Yes, I would consider a choice more inhumane compared to a non-choice situation.

[Generalcamo]

I am in favor for the following crimes:
Treason (You are giving them info that could kill our men)
First Degree Murder
Attempt at mass murder (A 5 ton bomb that failed to detonate for example)
War Crimes

However, there should be a large delay, in case of framing (Once the guy is dead, and the person is revealed not to have done it...) there should also be periods of torture. And Death should be the worse possible death.

[Alias]

And how exactly will torture help, especially if you are unsure of the level of their guilt?

[GuardianTempest]

And that's why I said it was a crazy idea, I haven't really thought much yet all that's on my head(other than Touhou themes) is to make those criminals WORK not just die slowly without doing anything good for us. And at the same time the fear of insurmountable tasks and hardship will cause others to keep straight.

EDIT: Oh Alias was referring to another post my bad.

Edited by GuardianTempest, 06 February 2011 - 06:13.