Well, I'm British (Scottish to be exact) and I always believe in eye-for-an-eye. But only in some circumstances. If it was premeditated murder then I do think the death penalty is justified. If it was out of anger or alcohol-fueled, then I think they should get jailed, along with help to deal with their anger and/or drinking.
Is the death penalty ever justified?
- Thread starter Antlers
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Let's also bear in mind that the parole concept needs to go away as well. I've seen many a violent man walking around on the street because he was able to pretend to be good for a few years. Once out, they just go right back to what they were doing before, and worse yet, they are better at it because of the contacts they made while in prison. It's been shown that criminals that have done any significant time in prison actually come out worse than they were before.bluepilot said:
Wow, this went down in a very different manner than I thought when I first checked out this thread...
I am against the death penalty. Although a person can be a terrifying, demented monster, they are still a person, and human rights don't change depending on what you've done.
"If they've taken a life, why don't we take theirs? Eye for an eye?" Because we have to prove that murder and violence do not solve problems. We have to be a cut above. Stand for something, unlike those who did the crime.
I believe that everyone deserves a chance at redemption, even if only in their own eyes. Dangerous individuals need to be isolated from society, there's no mistaking that, but to deny them the chance to improve, learn and heal is disgusting and the antithesis of everything the human race is.
I am against the death penalty. Although a person can be a terrifying, demented monster, they are still a person, and human rights don't change depending on what you've done.
"If they've taken a life, why don't we take theirs? Eye for an eye?" Because we have to prove that murder and violence do not solve problems. We have to be a cut above. Stand for something, unlike those who did the crime.
I believe that everyone deserves a chance at redemption, even if only in their own eyes. Dangerous individuals need to be isolated from society, there's no mistaking that, but to deny them the chance to improve, learn and heal is disgusting and the antithesis of everything the human race is.
The only form of killing I'd ever accept is self-defence and other similar tragic events where you do not have much choice. We should keep in mind that crime usually occurs for a reason. Executing a criminal gives nothing to society, keeping them isolated in a prison for the rest of their lives is a horrendous phsycological torture which no one should have to endure. Never being able to walk outside freely ever again, not allowed to see friends and family except for short phone-calls. If they're lucky they might see their faces from time to time! Constantly being under threat from the baton, if not a gun held by the guards. Keeping criminals in such places brings no benefit to society either as alot of effort is put on sustaining unproductive individuals.
Society has a responisbility to help its population. Consequences usually tends to occur when an individual commits acts which cause negative impact on the others, but the main goal should not be to punish the guilty for life, but rather to help them function properly in society once more. This can be solved with various things such as phsycological treatment and financial aid from the goverment so that criminals do not have to rely on crime to get food on the table, which enables them to get a productive job.
Society has a responisbility to help its population. Consequences usually tends to occur when an individual commits acts which cause negative impact on the others, but the main goal should not be to punish the guilty for life, but rather to help them function properly in society once more. This can be solved with various things such as phsycological treatment and financial aid from the goverment so that criminals do not have to rely on crime to get food on the table, which enables them to get a productive job.
It is justified all the time by different lines of logic and rational. What I think is being asked is whether there is a fundamental flaw with a justice system that forbids the removal of life from another human being, doing so in its own manner for the proposed greater good.
Obviously it can be argued both ways.
On one extreme brutal punishment would keep our prisons much more empty and our tax dollars otherwise spent. Sure people would be missing hands because they stole, genitals because they raped, and heads because they killed someone in cold blood but it is economical to administer one dose of punishment, instead of a slow one over time.
We have a moderated view of this and have decided to take on the difficult task of deciding what crime deserves what punishment. Is the crime heinous enough to warrant execution? How long will it take for the execution to be conducted? How many appeals is a person allowed? What rights do prisoner's have? What compensation should be given to those wrongfully convicted or the families of those wrongfully executed?
This is a hybrid that states that there are instances where a crime is so utterly despicable that it is necessary for an entity to be purged from society. The act of capital punishment is viewed then as both cathartic, and cleansing.
The final viewpoint and other extreme states that as human beings we are graced with greater powers of intellect and emotion thereby allowing us to rise above the desire to claim the fickle intoxicant; revenge. This is modulated by the well known fact that humans are a pretentious creature, thinking a great deal of itself and its creations. That aside, there are the arguable instances where executions do not deter murder, where 'killing to sanction killing' is a fallacy, and where there are some regions of powers that a government entities should not be treading.
All three have justifications, logic, and rational. All three have these in different forms.
I am not sold on any, and won't be any time soon.
Cheers
Obviously it can be argued both ways.
On one extreme brutal punishment would keep our prisons much more empty and our tax dollars otherwise spent. Sure people would be missing hands because they stole, genitals because they raped, and heads because they killed someone in cold blood but it is economical to administer one dose of punishment, instead of a slow one over time.
We have a moderated view of this and have decided to take on the difficult task of deciding what crime deserves what punishment. Is the crime heinous enough to warrant execution? How long will it take for the execution to be conducted? How many appeals is a person allowed? What rights do prisoner's have? What compensation should be given to those wrongfully convicted or the families of those wrongfully executed?
This is a hybrid that states that there are instances where a crime is so utterly despicable that it is necessary for an entity to be purged from society. The act of capital punishment is viewed then as both cathartic, and cleansing.
The final viewpoint and other extreme states that as human beings we are graced with greater powers of intellect and emotion thereby allowing us to rise above the desire to claim the fickle intoxicant; revenge. This is modulated by the well known fact that humans are a pretentious creature, thinking a great deal of itself and its creations. That aside, there are the arguable instances where executions do not deter murder, where 'killing to sanction killing' is a fallacy, and where there are some regions of powers that a government entities should not be treading.
All three have justifications, logic, and rational. All three have these in different forms.
I am not sold on any, and won't be any time soon.
Cheers
I wonder how many of the 'taxpayer's money!' people here actually pay any taxes.
Every time I reply there's just another whole load of replies saying the same thing. Also these situations are getting more and more ridiculous. If someone killed my entire bloodline? My entire bloodline?!?!?! That's not even a viable suggestion.
My opinion all comes down to this: If someone is a danger to society, by all means keep them in jail. Maybe they'll change. Maybe they won't. But in jail, they're not doing harm. If they're a danger to the other jailbirds, isolate them.
I'm not big on punishment. OK, there should be a deterrant. Jail should by no means be a cushy hotel (such a stupid suggestion, I can't believe how many people throw that around). It shouldn't be pleasant. And it isn't. So, there's the solution.
I think prisoners should be given work to do that benefits society also. I see absolutely nothing wrong with further eductation in prison either.
If I ever suffer at the hands of a criminal, I don't know what i'll feel. Maybe I'll wish horrible things upon them. But if I do, I'd wish them KNOWING that whatever I feel, they're not going to get the death penalty and be tortured. If I ended up actually having a say, I very much doubt I'd inflict that on them. Life imprisonment.
Every time I reply there's just another whole load of replies saying the same thing. Also these situations are getting more and more ridiculous. If someone killed my entire bloodline? My entire bloodline?!?!?! That's not even a viable suggestion.
My opinion all comes down to this: If someone is a danger to society, by all means keep them in jail. Maybe they'll change. Maybe they won't. But in jail, they're not doing harm. If they're a danger to the other jailbirds, isolate them.
I'm not big on punishment. OK, there should be a deterrant. Jail should by no means be a cushy hotel (such a stupid suggestion, I can't believe how many people throw that around). It shouldn't be pleasant. And it isn't. So, there's the solution.
I think prisoners should be given work to do that benefits society also. I see absolutely nothing wrong with further eductation in prison either.
If I ever suffer at the hands of a criminal, I don't know what i'll feel. Maybe I'll wish horrible things upon them. But if I do, I'd wish them KNOWING that whatever I feel, they're not going to get the death penalty and be tortured. If I ended up actually having a say, I very much doubt I'd inflict that on them. Life imprisonment.
The problem with the death penalty is that it is used only one the most gritty and hardcore criminals. A money laundering banker helping to keep drug and arms business afloat will never get the death penalty, or a malicious hacker who steals millions of dollars. It's only murderers and other forms of dirty street crime. The criminals who do this, are not afraid of death. If they were, they wouldn't do it. They're already a little off in the head. The death penalty doesn't discourage them at all.
If someone denies the right to live to someone else then they have forefit their own right to live.
I hate. HATE HATE HATE. When people think that putting Genocidests in jail will force them to "think" about their crime. Well they will, but not in they you're thinking about it. They've thought they did something good. OR justifiable(Sp?) by God or Allah. They deserve to be killed so they can go to the gates of heaven and have whoever go "GIT UR FATASS DOWN IN HELL, HEATHEN!" And that, I might add, would be way worse then being "In Jail"
(I only used the religous arguement because its usually religous people who form the arguement up)
(I only used the religous arguement because its usually religous people who form the arguement up)
I would say in any case where the criminal cannot be rehabilitated (or refuses to rehabilitate) and sent back into public life, or otherwise is deemed too dangerous for contact with the public, they should be killed. Obviously, this decision isn't something to be taken lightly, but we can find a way to make it work.
Seriously though, if a person will never be allowed in society again, just off them. Fuck letting them 'stew in their guilt' or any of that bullshit, just get them off this planet.
Also, why the hell do we need humane forms of execution? We don't have to draw and quarter them, but firing squad and hanging are both rather cheap and easy execution methods. I can't say much about hanging, but I know from personal experience that bullet wounds don't even hurt much until later, which a criminal slated for execution doesn't have to worry about. So long as the method of execution is still quick (as in less than a couple minutes to fatality) we should just go with whatever is cheap; these assholes have already wasted tax money on their trial and incarceration, do they really have to cost us even MORE with their final breath?
Seriously though, if a person will never be allowed in society again, just off them. Fuck letting them 'stew in their guilt' or any of that bullshit, just get them off this planet.
Also, why the hell do we need humane forms of execution? We don't have to draw and quarter them, but firing squad and hanging are both rather cheap and easy execution methods. I can't say much about hanging, but I know from personal experience that bullet wounds don't even hurt much until later, which a criminal slated for execution doesn't have to worry about. So long as the method of execution is still quick (as in less than a couple minutes to fatality) we should just go with whatever is cheap; these assholes have already wasted tax money on their trial and incarceration, do they really have to cost us even MORE with their final breath?
You obviously didn't read my whole post... Reread it, and try tell me that again.Antlers said:
The thing is that not everyone is recoverable, and they end up in prison all of their lives. In those cases the death penalty should be an option (refering to serious crimes like multiple murders (not manslaughter which is accidental), multiple rape, etc etclittlerob said:
I did read it, twice, because I got confused.Mrsnugglesworth said:
So... Just tell me if I'm right then. You're saying Islam extremists (basically) think they've done right by their god. But, according to you they haven't (I think), so when they're killed they'll go to hell.
1. I haven't read the Q'uran but I'm pretty sure they get that whole 'let's bomb people and we'll go to heaven' thing from somewhere. So chances are, their bible tells them they're going to heaven.
2. Let's say the Muslims are right (purely for the purposes of this discussion, it makes me shudder to say any kind of religion is right), well, they ARE going to heaven.
3. Presuming there is no heaven or hell, these people have the last second of their life thinking they did the right thing and are going to heaven.
So... I don't get it.
Unless I really did misunderstand, in which case by all means correct me.
