Poll: An Argument for Capital Punishment

[Dele]

The worst criminals are the cold-blooded, unsympathetic killers, who are fully aware of the price of their actions, yet see the intentional suffering and pain and deaths of others as worth the risk. It is up to us to show them that such anti-social (and that is a very tame way to put it) behavior has repercussions. And when you think about it, "degradation" in hardly the right word for our execution of convicts, for we reaffirm the humanity of the executed by giving them the basis for which to pay for and acknowledge their actions.

So you are doing it to punish them?

How humane is it to keep them imprisoned in a dark, dank cell for the rest of their lives, so as to anguish in their deeds, anyway. There is a reason that many people, in any dire circumstance, would rather die than go on. To grant such criminals respite from mental and emotional repercussions is the least we can do for them.

Oh, now you are doing it for them. Make up your mind.

Capital punishment is, has been, and always will be, a load of crap. Either planned and pre-meditated killing is wrong, or it isn't. If it is wrong then the state shouldn't be doing it. If it isn't wrong then the state doesn't have any right to execute other people for it.

So by the same logic you want to abolish jails and taxes because inviduals dont have the same rights government has. It aint black and white my friend.

How is it right? To keep alive men and women who do not see the value of life? And further more, how is right to make the innocent people pay to keep them alive?

Money has nothing to do with human life. And it never should be this way. It can lead to all kinds of horrific practices [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4921116.stm] when you open the lid on that particular pandoras box.

Brilliant chinese! Theyre effectively recycling human bodies and saving lives so I really dont see the difference between this and donating kidneys.

Shame and humiliation are often the best punishments. If someone kills, cut his hands off and tattoo "MURDERER" across his face. Similar for pretty much any crime you can commit, except for rape and such, then castration.

That would be inhumane.... and we still have to pay for the disarticulation of their hands (OR other offending organ) and tattoo. Then not only do you have a prisoner, you have a gimped prisoner to take care of.

Heh, we are talking about leaving people to rot for decades and it somehow is more humane than this.

 

[Beetlejooce]

The problem with the death sentence is that you are implying that killing is a crime then killing the person for doing it. Who are we to say who can live and who can die?

And I can assure you that most murderers won't in mid knife-swing think to themselves 'hmm the statistics show i could be executed for this'

A lot of murders are committed for revenge reasons, or because the people are generally psychotic and if (and someone mentioned this before) if someone dismembered and raped my daughter or whatever I would want the guy to be put to justice but I'd probably go and do it myself, disregarding statistics.

And the definition of murder is

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).

which is exactly what the judges are doing, just officially. And in fact the judges have murdered more people than most murderers have, as they do premeditate it.

Personally i feel capital punishment is the totally wrong message to send out.

EDIT: spellings

 

[Danzaivar]

Out of curiosity, what do anti-killy people think about using inmates organs for people in hospital? Kill a murderer and save 5 innocent people, that sweeten the deal at all for you guys?

 

[Unknower]

I'm fine with punishing warcrimes and genocides with capital punishment.

As a Combine, I shall sit this out, because everyone knows my stance on this.

All persons found guilty shall be executed.

All suspects are guilty. Otherwise, they wouldn't be suspects, would they?

 

[Scarecrow38]

Out of curiosity, what do anti-killy people think about using inmates organs for people in hospital? Kill a murderer and save 5 innocent people, that sweeten the deal at all for you guys?

I can't in good conscience ever support that sort of view. Capital Punishment allows the government to murder people legally. This sort of suggestion of using inmates for organ donation is yet another sign that Capital Punishment is used for all the wrong reasons:

1) Revenge (or whatever sugar-coated euphemism pro- death sentence people use)
2) Financial Savings
3) Doing something useful with them (organ donation et cetera)
4) Most effective deterrent

1. The whole basis of the legal system in any country is to seek justice and to justly punish criminals (among other things). Using Capital Punishment completely undermines the goal of the system, there is no fairness here. Instead we have society turning into the very thing they are trying to destroy. The most dangerous consequence of this punishment is the possibility of killing an innocent person. If the criminal had a life sentence he would be released and pardoned, in this scenario he would already be dead. I have a sneaking suspicion that the family of the deceased isn't going to be soothed when they learn that the innocent person was put to death.

2. Any arguments that we should use the Death Penalty instead of imprisonment because it would save tax dollars are a sad reflection on social morality. This theory essentially states that it is actually possible to put a monetary value on a human life. These aren't cattle or Playstations we're dealing with... they're people just like everyone here. To think that people actually think of their fellow human beings as assets and financial burdens is a terrible thing. A modern society cannot be built on a premise that devalues human life to such an extent. Despite what these people did (or were convicted of doing anyway), they still have rights and the other benefits that come with being human. A justcie system that considers humans with such moral disdain isn't just at all. It's a broken system.

3. This type of argument, like the one put forward by the post above mine, just goes to show what evils humans can commit with 'the best intentions'. Murder is one of the most terrible things one person can do to another (if not the most), and here we have people who are so narrow- minded that they can ignore this. This thinking has a very real danger of leading to a Slippery Slope. We first say that we kill all murderers and use their bodies to benefit a few sick people. We then extend this thinking to: we kill all rapists in order to benefit a few sick people. Our justice system then makes subtle movements to the point where criminals are having their sentences bumped up to death from extended imprisonment because a local hospital needs a heart immediately for a patient. So people with crimes that don't necessarilt warrant death are murdered for their fellow man.

4. Finally the idea of deterrence. considerable amount of people believe that Capital Punishment is better than life imprisonment because it acts as a more effective deterrent. A life sentence in jail is just as deterring as the death penalty in my opinion but let's ignore the issue of levels of deterrent effectiveness. Murder, by its very definition is something that is pre-meditated and planned (perhaps within a few seconds but a conscious decision is still made at some point). Therefore murderers have, to an extent, thought that this act could lead to their death/ life imprisonment. Yet they have still pushed on with the murder. I would argue that if a person was going to commit a murder, they would be sufficiently ready to do so such that the fact that their punishment is death as opposed to life imprisonment is immaterial. For the most severe crimes, deterrence isn't as important compared to retribution. So I think deterrence- themed arguments are not really relevant.

 

[Silver]

I really couldn't be bothered to read all of it, I just needed to point out two things.

Yes, the crime rate did go down in Russia, under a regime based on terror that killed almost every criminal, and person who disagreed with the system. My point being, that yes, capital punishment CAN reduce crime. So can implanting small bombs in everyone at birth and give the codes to the government so they can blow everyone up when they want to. And of course, keeping everyone locked in a room with no outside contact and only a work file delivered everyday would keep crime even lower.

Basing a system on terror isn't a viable option these days, sure it works, so does dictatorship, despotism and killing everyone who disagrees with you.


Then you go on saying that almost all activities we partake in kills innocents. What the hell kind of a logic is that? Shouldn't the answer to that be to try and stop that from happening, rather than kill more people? Drunk driving probably kills some criminals every year, let's keep that too?


Then you go on talking about the costs. Why not have the criminals pay for it? Hand them a bill when they get out, or better yet, give a job in the prison, producing goods or something, so that they can keep it up.


You aso go complaining that it's inhuman to keep people in dark, scary, claustrophobic rooms, and that's nicer to kill them. Why don't you ask them what they think about it? You're not the one getting thrown in there, after all.



After that, I'd like to ask, what's the point? So you have a murderer. What good comes from you putting a bullet through his/her head? He/she's dead, yeah. He/she won't kill anyone else, no, sure. There are other ways to prevent that. There are ways that he/she could still be useful to society. You don't solve a problem by killing a person. If that person had a reason for killing someone, another person will also find a reason for it. You don't remove the reason behind the crime by killing the perpetrator.

 

[goodman528]

It's not about punishment. It should be about putting a bullet in their head so they are not in a prison somewhere for a few decades waiting away tax payers' money.

 

[Lukeydoodly]

Yah, just killing them saves quite a bit of cash.

 

[Sion_Barzahd]

I'm not certain if i'm all for Capital punishment, though i don't think it should be abolished.
I mean every culture has had some form of capital punishment, or at least every culture i've ever heard of anyway. (I could be wrong. It happens every once every blue moon or so.)
If death penalties have been a part of our justice system for at least 1000 years, and we're only in the last century beginning to question it, is it possible our logic is simply become lost.
I mean in england about in the 11th century they had punishments to fit the crimes. (Though some may have been a tad extreme, still effective.) Such as caught hunting illegally, you'd have your trigger fingers removed. Well 'bow fingers' but they're still the same two fingers.

I think our modern legal systems are becoming too leniant.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

Khell, you're considerations are flawed. If you'll note, Russian excecutioners also suffered incredibly high levels of mental instability: Breakdowns, delusions, schizophrenia, and mostly just cases of outright psychosis. You're solution entails disposing of one theortetical psychotic by taking the of the emergeance of another. Nevermind the fact that said first psychotic may simply have been a person outlined in my previous argument- a fundamentally good person who simply snapped.


Oh, and russian excecutions were carried out using .303, .45, 7.62mm rounds. Not 9mm.

And, it may be noted, that soviet russia had a very high rate of crime despite the secret police simply due to the fact that they fought a world war and a civil war in rapid succession, leading to a high percentage of the surviving population becoming dehumanised and innured to violence and death. Oh, and the poverty, urban degradation...etc. Yah, that also helped.

Killing people is not the solution. Educating them and making them actual productive member of society, is.

And I still support the death penalty. Oh, well...

 

[Silver]

While I believe that rehabilitation works for most people, and I believe that no civilised society should kill their own because of what in most cases is a mistake, I never said anything about letting someone out.

If you're going to go with the punishment thing, and guilt, then have them repay their debt instead. I'm not saying let them out and tell them to behave, I'm saying have them work. Don't let their silly god judge them, that won't help us. Their god can judge them when they're done paying us back through hard work. If it wants to have them toil for eternity for what they did, they can get a headstart here.



I do think that rehabilitation works. I just think we need to be sensible about it. We just don't present the oppurtunity for repeat crime. Sure, it costs more than a bullet through their heads. So does educating people on why killing is wrong, but both are necessary for our society to advance. A human life, whatever has happened in it before, is more than just a figure. More than just a sum of cash.

Your way is just killing more people. Why not put bullets in the executioners head every time they accidently kill an innocent as well? Or hell, we don't allow criminals to kill other criminals anyway, so why not kill the executioners?

Better yet, why not have the criminal next in line do it? That'll show them. That'll teach them. Oh, wait, they'll be dead. There won't be a lesson to learn.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

No the death penalty does not reduce the amount of crimes. Look at the crime rate in Texas.

It does, however, reduce the number of criminals in existence that the moments following their execution.

My take is simply this - capital punishment is nothing more than state sanctioned murder. I have no moral outrage at the notion, but there is no sense in misabeling the procedure into something more palatable. Generally speaking, a person's take on the subject seems to be based almost entirely on what they perceive the purpose of the justice system is. Some people believe that the justice system exists to punish, other's believe it exists to rehabilitate - and this distinction seems to be the basis for the viewpoint on capital punishment in general.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

No the death penalty does not reduce the amount of crimes. Look at the crime rate in Texas.

It does, however, reduce the number of criminals in existence that the moments following their execution.

My take is simply this - capital punishment is nothing more than state sanctioned murder. I have no moral outrage at the notion, but there is no sense in misabeling the procedure into something more palatable. Generally speaking, a person's take on the subject seems to be based almost entirely on what they perceive the purpose of the justice system is. Some people believe that the justice system exists to punish, other's believe it exists to rehabilitate - and this distinction seems to be the basis for the viewpoint on capital punishment in general.

Execution isn't punishment. Once someone is dead that is it, their punishment is finished. If the "punishment" being delivered in this case is the horror they feel during those final steps towards the execution room then that kind of punishment is inhumane beyond belief.

If anyone even thinks of coming back with "well they were inhumane" - seriously, don't. If your answer to this kind if inhumanity is more inhumanity, you are exactly the same as them, you only differ on the circumstances such treatment should be used on people.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Execution isn't punishment. Once someone is dead that is it, their punishment is finished. If the "punishment" being delivered in this case is the horror they feel during those final steps towards the execution room then that kind of punishment is inhumane beyond belief.

If anyone even thinks of coming back with "well they were inhumane" - seriously, don't. If your answer to this kind if inhumanity is more inhumanity, you are exactly the same as them, you only differ on the circumstances such treatment should be used on people.

I tend to agree with the logic you use, but again, I feel no moral outrage towards the subject. To declare an execution as being humane seems silly - no matter how gently you kill someone the end result of the process makes the entire event inhumane by default.

Of course, when speaking about supposedly "humane" punishments, I think the worst of them has to be the lethal injection. I cannot even begin to comprehend what it's like knowing with complete certainty that fighting against the drugs is impossible and when your body succumbs to the anesthetic, you will never wake up again. The firing squad, the noose, even the antiquated head removal all achieve death in a much quicker, far more surprising fashion.

If one WAS going to have a humane execution, perhaps the best way to achieve it is to never tell the prisoner what their fate will be. Then, observe them and at the moment when they display what seems to be happiness or even joy, have them shot in the back of the head. No terror, no dread, just perhaps a moment of dawning realization.

 

[notyouraveragejoe]

In my state alone 13 innocent people were literally murdered by the government on death row. Our system isn't perfect and that reason alone is why we should abolish it nationally. No amount of manditory appeals will eliminate innocent deaths completely. Anyone that still insists on the death penalty and ok with sacrificing innocents so they can kill criminals is a monster. (like justice scalia)

Ah, In your books I would be a monster then?

I believe in Capitol Punishment yet I would have the crimes leading to it be limited to Serial Rapist, Serial Child Abuser and Serial Killer. Also increase (in this case) the jury from 11 to 15 people, needing full agreement for capital punishment. Yes there are innocent people killed. It is sad. However a jury needs to have found them Guilty Beyond Reasonable doubt. I believe the security of a population can't be endangered by a serial killer in a jail.

Edit: Removed final sentence since I thought it sounded a little flamey. Apologies.