Page 1 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

Monolithe
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 228
Location: The realm of trolls

17 Oct 2013, 2:42 am

The reason i bring this up is because i recently read an article on it on listverse, and honestly it surprised me how many of the people that commented on it there were totally for death penalty, some in a sort of aggressive way. Since i can't link, here's a "copy and paste" of the article:


5 ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY

The existence of the death penalty in any society raises one underlying question: have we established our justice systems out of a desire for rehabilitation, or out of a desire for retribution? The lister has set out to examine both sides of the debate over the ethics and legality of capital punishment, especially in the US, and chooses neither side in any of the following entries. They are not presented in any meaningful order.


[5A] Against: It Teaches the Condemned Nothing

What is the purpose of punishment? We take our lead from one major source, our parents—and they no doubt took their lead from their own parents. When your young child emulates what he just saw in a Rambo movie, you give him a stern lecture about what is real and what is not, what is acceptable in real life and what is not. When your child tries some crazy acrobatic move off a piece of furniture and hurts himself, you might spank him to be sure that he remembers never to do it again.So when the child grows up, breaks into a home, and steals electronics, he gets caught and goes to prison. His time in prison is meant to deprive him of the freedom to go where he wants anywhere in the world, and to do what he wants when he wants. This is the punishment, and most people do learn from it. In general, no one wants to go back. But if that child grows up and murders someone for their wallet or just for fun, and they are in turn put to death, they are taught precisely nothing, because they are no longer alive to learn from it. We cannot rehabilitate a person by killing him or her.


[5B] For: It is the Ultimate Warning

Nevertheless, if would-be criminals know undoubtedly that they will be put to death should they murder with premeditation, very many of them are much less inclined to commit murder. Whether or not would-be criminals are wary of committing the worst crime is an important—and probably impossible—question to answer. Murder still happens very frequently. So some criminals disregard this warning for various reasons. But the fact does remain that many criminals who ride the fence on committing murder ultimately decide to spare the victim’s life.In a larger sense, capital punishment is the ultimate warning against all crimes. If the criminal knows that the justice system will not stop at putting him to death, then the system appears more draconian to him. Hence, he is less inclined to break and enter. He may have no intention of killing anyone in the process of robbing them, but is much more apprehensive about the possibility if he knows he will be executed. Thus, there is a better chance that he will not break and enter in the first place.


[4A] Against: It Does Not Dissuade

If the foreknowledge of any punishment is meant to dissuade the criminal from committing the crime, why do people still murder others? The US had a 2012 murder rate of 4.8 victims per 100,000—meaning that nearly 15,000 people were victims of homicide that year. Capital punishment does not appear to be doing its job; it doesn’t seem to be changing every criminal’s mind about killing innocent people. If it does not dissuade, then it serves no purpose. The warning of life in prison without parole must equally dissuade criminals.


[4B] For: It Provides Closure for Victims

There are many victims of a single murder. The criminal gets caught, tried, and convicted, and it is understood that the punishment will be severe. But the person he has killed no longer has a part to play in this. Unfortunately, the murderer has deprived his family and friends of a loved one. Their grief begins with the murder. It may not end with the murderer’s execution, but the execution does engender a feeling of relief at no longer having to think about the ordeal—a feeling which often fails to arise while the murderer still lives on.A system in place for the purpose of granting justice cannot do so for the surviving victims, unless the murderer himself is put to death.


[3A] Against: It Is Hypocritical

It is strange that a nation would denounce the practice of murder by committing the very same act. By doing so, we’re essentially championing the right to life by taking it from others. True—as a whole, we are not murderers, and understandably refuse to be placed in the same category as someone like Ted Bundy. But to many opponents of the death penalty, even Ted Bundy should have been given life without parole. The fact that he murdered at least thirty people—for the mere reason that he enjoyed doing it—has no bearing on the hypocrisy, the flagrant dishonesty, of the declaration that such a person deserves to be killed because he had no right to kill. If the goal of any punishment, as stated above, is to teach us those things we should not do, then the justice system should more adequately teach the criminality of killing by refusing to partake in it.


[3B] For: It Is All That Would-be Criminals Fear

If you read about Bundy’s life in prison, waiting nine years for his execution, you will see that the man exhausted every single legal point he and his lawyers could think of, all in an attempt to spare him execution. He “defended” himself in prison interviews by blaming pornography for causing his uncontrollable teenage libido, and for causing him to think of women as objects and not humans. He attempted to have his death sentence commuted to life without parole by explaining that it was all pornography’s fault, and that had it never existed, he would have been a good person.When that didn’t work, he pretended to come clean and tell police where the bodies of unfound victims were, so that their families could have closure. He never once admitted that he was a bad person, and just before his execution, he claimed that he hadn’t done anything wrong. It was obvious that he feared being put to death. He did his best to avert it. This means that he did not fear life in prison—at least not as much as he feared capital punishment. He had many opportunities to kill himself in his cell, but he did not. He might have done it a month before his execution, when all hope for clemency was gone—but he was afraid of death. How many would-be murderers have turned away at the last second purely out of fear of the executioner’s needle?


[2A] Against: It Is Always Cruel

In the end, though, death is always at least a little painful. Perhaps the only truly peaceful way to go is while asleep—but no one has ever come back to say that this didn’t hurt. If your heart stops while you sleep, it is certainly possible that your brain will recognize a problem and wake you up at the very moment when it is too late. So what we cannot help but let Nature do, we ought not to force on others for any reason. If we do so, it might be fair to say that we law-abiding people, who embody the justice system, are guilty of equal cruelty towards criminals who commit murder. The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for one, dictates that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”In the US, there are five legal methods of execution: lethal injection, electrocution, firing squad, hanging, and gassing. These are all intended to be as painless as possible, but they all run the risk of accidents. John Wayne Gacy, who was not afraid of death, was executed via lethal injection—the most efficient, risk-free method. Yet his death did not go as planned.The sodium thiopental entered his bloodstream successfully and put him to sleep. The pancuronium bromide was then administered successfully to paralyze his diaphragm. This would cause asphyxiation if the next chemical, potassium chloride, were not immediately administered to stop the heart. But the potassium chloride had congealed in its tube before Gacy was brought into the room. He was unconscious and unable to breathe for several minutes while the last drug’s tube was changed. His death took eighteen minutes, instead of the usual seven. And whether or not he was in great pain is impossible to determine.


[2B] For: It Is Not Always Cruel

It’s true that cruelty should not be legally tolerated—and the five methods listed above are very efficient in killing the condemned before he or she is able to feel it. Granted, we are not able to ask the dead whether or not they felt their necks snap, or the chemicals burn inside them—but modern American executions very rarely go awry. It does happen, but the reported accidents since 1976 number about ten nationwide, out of 1,328.When the condemned is fastened into the electric chair, one of the conductors is strapped securely around the head with the bare metal flush against the shaved and wet scalp. This permits the electricity to be conducted directly into the brain, shutting it off more quickly than the brain can register pain.Hanging causes death by snapping the neck of the condemned around the second vertebrae—instantly shutting off the brain’s ability to communicate with the rest of the body, and causing the heart to stop within seconds.The firing squad involves five men shooting the heart of the condemned with high-powered rifles. The heart is completely destroyed and unconsciousness follows within seconds.The gas chamber is now no longer forced on the condemned, because it frequently appeared to cause more pain than was expected or acceptable. The gas is usually hydrogen cyanide, which inhibits mitochondrial respiration in every cell of the entire body, theoretically shutting off the brain like a light switch. But it requires that the condemned breathe deeply.


[1A] Against: Prison Is Hell on Earth

Consider a pedophile who kills an infant girl by raping her. There is an unwritten “code of honor” in prisons that virtually requires inmates to kill such offenders. Probably half of America’s prisoners were in some way abused as children, and harbor a seething hatred for those who abuse children. The murdering pedophile is given the death penalty, but will probably spend ten years beforehand in prison. He will most likely be housed in solitary confinement for his own protection, but there are frequently holes in such protection, and the inmates may find their way to him. And if this happens, pedophiles are often gang-raped, castrated, beaten to death, stabbed, and sometimes even beheaded before guards—who may deliberately ignore the scene—can save them.Most prisoners consider each other to be in the same predicament, and treat each other quite well in general. But they are still in prison, and despair about their lack of freedom. What is life like for Zacarias Moussaoui, the member of the September 11 hijacking teams who got caught a month before the attack? A single juror saved him from death. He has, since 2006, been incarcerated for twenty-three hours per day in a tiny concrete cell, with one hour of daily exercise in an empty concrete swimming pool; he has no access to other inmates, and only rare contact with guards, who say nothing to him; he can see nothing of the outside world except a tiny sliver of sky—and his will be his life. Capital punishment is an unnecessary threat.


[1B] For: It Is the Best Answer to Murder

The justice system basically attempts to mete out punishment that fits the crime. Severe crimes result in imprisonment. ”Petty larceny” is not treated with the severity that is meted to “grand theft auto,” and the latter, consequently, receives more time in prison. So if severe—but non-lethal—violence toward another is found deserving of life without parole, then why should premeditated homicide be given the very same punishment? This fact might induce a would-be criminal to go ahead and kill the victim he has already mugged and crippled. Why would it matter, after all? His sentence could not get any worse.If murder is the willful deprivation of a victim’s right to life, then the justice system’s willful deprivation of the criminal’s right to the same is—even if overly severe—a punishment which fits the most severe crime that can be committed. Without capital punishment, it could be argued that the justice system makes no provision in response to the crime of murder, and thus provides no justice for the victim.


- Which side are you on - for or against? And why?



arpedi
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 5 Oct 2013
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 14
Location: Realm of Siam

17 Oct 2013, 3:29 am

As I am a big fan of freedom, I would say I am voting for death penalty but only for those who ask for it. :wink:

It's true that some criminals should be restrained and put apart, for society to protect itself but those who can't take life sentence should be offered to die if this is their wish.

The others.. Well I'm not a big fan of revenge which is a kind of barbarism. So let's try to teach them to understand our views ( We the People.. Who agrees to respect each other (in theory :roll: ) to live together ) ..

Anyway it is a brief issue in the (I hope) long history of mankind. As soon - 20 or 30 years, we will have the technology to monitor in real time any person we want to, if we need to : internal chips, GPS and so on. And even terminate the already recognized criminal if he puts himself in a criminal situation.

I don't know exactly the position of the Human Rights League on the subject but I know that society becomes more and more ready to accept that kind of things, especially concerning criminality prevention.

And soon, death penalty debates will belong to the old world. :)


_________________
AQ: 36, FQ: 33, SQ-R: 103, EQ: 52
INTJ, Introvert(44%) iNtuitive(25%) Thinking(62%) Judging(56%)


Monolithe
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 228
Location: The realm of trolls

17 Oct 2013, 4:47 am

I myself am against death penalty. Sure there are many people in this world that does horrible horrible crimes, and by no means they do deserve a proper punishment, but in my opinion, if say a serial killer have been caught for committing gruesome murders, giving him the death penalty is in fact just the easy way out

- Let's make a comparison with say a depressed teenager; He has no friends, his grades are really bad, his classmates bullies him and beats him up on a daily basis, and when at home his parents are either drinking, sleeping, arguing or complaining about what a failure their son is, at worst even collaborating in verbally abusing him. He is secretly depressed, and has over the years become self destructive. He can't take it any longer, and doesn't have the guts to ask anyone for help, so one day he runs down to the lake. Whilst walking into the lake, he starts to think about how great it's going to be to finally be free from it all, to no longer have to fear what the next day will bring. From his pocket, he takes out a razor. After four seconds it's done, both his wrists are running red from the cuts. As he feels himself weaken he lays down in the water, steadily finding it harder to keep his eyes open. He shuts his eyes, then with a smile on his face the water flow carries his dying body with it. His last thought before dying "No more having to worry, no more misery - A final sleep at last". . . What you see here in this "story" the boy opts out, basing his decision on the fact that the other option is not just worse, but it would last far longer.

..So in a way, when one punishes someone with death penalty, it's in a way the same deal: The sentenced doesn't really have to suffer much (not in comparison to his victims) dying under as little pain as possible (compared to how other people and his own thoughts could harm him), no longer having to worry about anything. But if he instead got life in prison, he would most likely have suffered greater. There he would have inmates to worry about (possibility for being raped, beaten or even painfully murdered by them). Continuing he wouldn't get to do the things he wants to do, not being able to satisfy his needs. Also being isolated inside concrete walls, not being able to talk to anyone - having the prison guards giving him the silent treatment and sometimes in secret maybe even beating him up, in a way he is robbed from his life. Sooner or later even the sanest person whilst knowing they would have to live under such circumstances for the rest of their miserable prison life, would become depressed, self destructive, and maybe even get suicidal thoughts. Now he would not only be in misery because of the way the prison works, but also because of the way his thoughts have become negative and hopeless.

In general a life in prison sentence is a better option than death penalty because:

- The criminal does suffer sooner or later, knowing that he is not able to escape the faith he is in
- Death penalty is inhumane and makes us just as much of a murderer (no matter how gruesome crimes the criminals have done) Actually It sort of promotes killing as an ok sollution to a difficult problem
- It is childish, sort of "You ate my ice cream, so i ate yours" syndrome. It is the same as taking revenge, and revenge is the immature way out. We're not in the middle ages any longer and it's time we realize that "blood revenge" should have been put to rest ages ago.
- We can spare the lifes of possible innocents, having been wrongly sentenced.
- Killing is wrong no matter what, plain and simple
- Some criminals faith were already "written" whilst a child, by for example growing up under violent circumstances, having parents that didn't teach them right from wrong and additionally isolating them from the world outside preventing them from being affected by the rest of society/learning from other people. If someone haven't known any better since they were children, they most likely will have the same mindset when adults. In addition some of the sentenced criminals suffer from mental illnesses, which may have caused them to perform such irrational, and inhumane acts.
- Life in prison doesn't violate the human right in the manner as death penalty, which in fact is against what the human rights stand for



nick007
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,059
Location: was Louisiana but now Vermont in the police state called USA

17 Oct 2013, 10:55 am

I find it odd that certain groups who are supposed to value life & care about helping the least advantage(like some Catholics I've known) support the death penalty'; I think they are major hypocrites. I'm against it & my reasons include :arrow: I don't trust the justice system; some people are found Not Guilty who knowingly commit murder but other people get the book thrown at them for any crime they get arrested for. I have no faith in any so-called justice system where someone serves jail time for possession of marijuana but allows certain murders to go completely free.
I think it's kind of hypocritical in a way to kill someone because they killed someone else. In a way I can understand why people they deserve that; eye-for-an-eye thing but by killing the murder we aren't any better than he/she is because we are killing him in different circumstances & reasons than he/she killed. He/she could of done it acting out of rage or not thinking clearly due to a mental disorder or felt threaten & forced into it & may feel horribly guilty about it. But giving a murder a death sentence we are choosing to kill when we aren't feeling threatened(no more lives or in danger because the murder is in custody) he/she is getting killed simply because we judged that to be an appropriate punishment; eye-for-an-eye thing that is just revenge.


_________________
"I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem!"
~King Of The Hill


"Hear all, trust nothing"
~Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition #190
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Ru ... cquisition


Uprising
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Jan 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,908

17 Oct 2013, 11:49 am

Against, since way too many people still get jailed whilst being completely innocent but are just unlucky/unpopular, especially asperger/autism people or people who are very unassertive by nature.



FMX
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Mar 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,319

17 Oct 2013, 1:16 pm

What an absolutely terrible list of arguments. Out of all of them, 4A is the only one that's valid - it's actually supported by statistics. But even that is not an "argument against", as such, but rather a counter-argument to an argument for, namely 5B/3B (same argument). The rest are plain rubbish.

The first thing to consider is: what's the alternative to the death penalty. The only reasonable alternative I'm aware of is life imprisonment. So the argument is not "death vs. no punishment" and nor is it "death vs. 20 years in prison" - it is "death vs. life in prison".

I don't think punishment ("making criminals suffer") should be the primary goal of sentencing. The goals should be community protection, rehabilitation, specific deterrence, general deterrence and punishment - in that order.

In this case rehabilitation and specific deterrence are both irrelevant, since the criminal was going to spend the rest of his life in prison anyway. Community protection is achieved equally well by life in prison and death penalty. (Slightly better by death penalty if you consider the possibility of escape.) General deterrence is a relevant factor, but there is no evidence that death penalty works as a deterrent, so we can also discard that.

That leaves punishment. I feel strongly that life in prison is a far, far worse punishment than the death penalty. That's exactly why I would be in favour of the death penalty. It simply isn't necessary to make someone suffer for 30-60 years - just kill them and be done with it. OK, I'm not completely against life in prison, either - perhaps it's appropriate for certain cases, but very rarely. If you still want to "make the criminals suffer", consider the fact that it's costing you, the taxpayer, about $100K per year to do so. Are you really that vindictive that you'd spend so much money on it? If so, it would be more rational to just torture them for a bit before killing them - much cheaper, quicker and they can get the same (overall) amount of suffering. Yet I don't see too many people arguing for that option!


_________________
CloudFlare eating your posts? Try the Lazarus browser extension. See https://wp-fmx.github.io/WP/


redrobin62
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,009
Location: Seattle, WA

17 Oct 2013, 1:44 pm

For.

Sorry. Some people are truly depraved and need to be eliminated. Why should I lose 1/2 my family while their sadistic killer gets to live on? That's not fair.



puddingmouse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Apr 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,777
Location: Cottonopolis

17 Oct 2013, 1:56 pm

Moved the thread from Random Discussion to PPR.


_________________
Zombies, zombies will tear us apart...again.


equestriatola
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 133,757
Location: Half of me is in the Washington state, the other Los Angeles.

17 Oct 2013, 1:56 pm

I am for it, but I only prefer one method of execution, and sorry if I will alienate anybody with this: The guillotine.


_________________
LIONS-STAMPEDERS-ELKS-ROUGHRIDERS-BLUE BOMBERS-TIGER-CATS-ARGONAUTS-REDBLACKS-ALOUETTES

The Canadian Football League - What We're Made Of

Feel free to talk to me, if you wish. :)

Every day is a gift- cherish it!

"A true, true friend helps a friend in need."


Monolithe
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 228
Location: The realm of trolls

17 Oct 2013, 2:30 pm

In a way i find the sentencing someone to death penalty kind of passive aggressive



VIDEODROME
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Nov 2008
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,691

17 Oct 2013, 2:34 pm

I only believe in Execution during Wartime. This is an extreme condition and massive killing is already being done. Execution would be for crimes such as Treason or captured Spies and Saboteurs. It should be done quickly with a shot to the head.

The Death Penalty seems barbaric and has it's place during sadly barbaric times like active War.

Otherwise, during Peacetime, I think Prison's real purpose is to quarantine criminals away from society to keep them from causing further harm. I think hoping to achieve something through punishment is futile. Just consider them all Exiles locked away from the regular community.



Monolithe
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2013
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 228
Location: The realm of trolls

17 Oct 2013, 2:57 pm

VIDEODROME wrote:
I only believe in Execution during Wartime. This is an extreme condition and massive killing is already being done. Execution would be for crimes such as Treason or captured Spies and Saboteurs. It should be done quickly with a shot to the head.

The Death Penalty seems barbaric and has it's place during sadly barbaric times like active War.

Otherwise, during Peacetime, I think Prison's real purpose is to quarantine criminals away from society to keep them from causing further harm. I think hoping to achieve something through punishment is futile. Just consider them all Exiles locked away from the regular community.


Well said :)



techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,148
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

17 Oct 2013, 3:03 pm

I think for any serious reforms on the death penality issue we'd need to have two things happen:

1) Find ways to enhance the accuracy of the justice and jury system without compromising or making it vulnerable - really work on forensic sciences and protocol so false positives and negatives get to be a lot less of an issue.

2) Let someone on death row literally have one or two appeals maximum.

We have to think clearly that the death penalty, rather than being punitive retribution, is society's way of having an abortion or cutting away the dead tissue or split ends. If someone's life has gone too far off path, they have no desire to figure it out, its a way of sending them back to whatever's outside of carnal reality.

We should do whatever we can to enhance/improve the rehabilitational aspects of prisons rather than having it be a place where criminals get more drugs and sharpen their know-how but if we're going to consider the death penalty as valid we'll have to look at it as a purifying/purgative duty. That might sound really twisted or macabre but societal surgery is about the extent of societal life-termination is, abortion in the usual sense and euthanasia at end life are just different manners of the same thing and they are also quite debatable as to whether or not we want to give place to them in our society or whether there is a counterbalancing means to solve the problems that would make them look attractive as necessity.

My own attitude is - if we're going to do it we should do it right and right now with the infinite appeals system making it more expensive to put someone to sleep than to let them finish their days in prison. Also, if you're to give someone an injection, electric surge, or whatever else it's probably wiser to hit them with some kind of drug - either opiate or barbituate even 20 minutes to half an hour before their planned execution that will disconnect their fear impulse, have them too giddy and light on their feet to have a panic attack as the lever or switch is pulled, and I say that because I worry that there may be consequences to such last-second terror and panic, both for the executed and the execution board and executioner; keeping in mind, I'm addressing the death penalty as an abortive/purgative institution rather than punitive (which I'd have to agree with most other people here that not only is death and end of worldly punishment but it's also the kind of thing that any career criminal, per most FBI and law enforcement that I know, would simply consider to be an 'occupational hazard' and something they've already squared themselves with the possibility of if they're ever caught).



Last edited by techstepgenr8tion on 17 Oct 2013, 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

17 Oct 2013, 3:05 pm

an eye for an eye makes the world blind.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,613

17 Oct 2013, 3:25 pm

[5A] Against: It Teaches the Condemned Nothing

The death penalty is punishment, not instruction for the offender. It does, however, teach others in society that the punishment for certain crimes will be enforced and should be considered if you are thinking of doing the crime.

[5B] For: It is the Ultimate Warning

See above.

[4A] Against: It Does Not Dissuade

False. It does. The problem is that you can't measure how effective it is because we don't have statistical data for people who are deterred from committing crime. We do know that when capital punishment is put on the table where it did not exist before, the crime rate does decrease. NO PUNISHMENT WILL DETER A PERSON WHO DOES NOT CARE ABOUT RISKING THE PENALTY.

[4B] For: It Provides Closure for Victims

The punishment isn't really about providing closure. If it does, fine. If not, that's not its purpose.

[3A] Against: It Is Hypocritical

There is nothing hypocritical about state-run execution when the subject is duly found guilty of a crime by due process. Murder is taking an innocent life without cause. Execution is about taking the life of a guilty person. The better argument is that our criminal justice system allows capital punishment to be applied in cases where guilt is not proven beyond any doubt, and we know that many on death row have been acquitted years later by new evidence, new forensic techniques and/or findings of impropriety in the handling of their prosecution.

[3B] For: It Is All That Would-be Criminals Fear

Again, we can't measure this. Some people simply will not be dissuaded by the threat of punishment. If you claim that it doesn't work on all is an excuse to not have it, then I propose we get rid of all forms of punishment because they don't work on every criminal.

[2A] Against: It Is Always Cruel

BULL. While the prisoner knows his death is coming and that can be a form of psychological torment (if he's not made his peace with it happening), modern techniques used in most states are a Hell of a lot more humane than what the prisoner did to his victim(s) to merit the punishment. Unless you want to do it along the lines of the killing of Lennie in "Of Mice And Men," there's really no way to remove any sense of "suffering" for the prisoner once he/she is sentenced to die.

[2B] For: It Is Not Always Cruel

See above.

[1A] Against: Prison Is Hell on Earth

Sometimes. There is a hierarchy in prison, but the fact is that prisons are tasked to protect such prisoners against other inmates. More so, depending on the crime, a prisoner might live quite well while incarcerated. So, Hell for some...not so bad for others.

[1B] For: It Is the Best Answer to Murder

When the person has killed someone in a depraved manner and it is proven beyond any doubt (e.g., lots of eyewitnesses), it is a more appropriate end than spending money to sustain the person who committed the crime.

Obviously I support the death penalty, but I don't have time now to go into a long dissertation as to why I feel it's worth keeping (in addition to my points above).



Moviefan2k4
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Sep 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 944
Location: Texas

17 Oct 2013, 3:41 pm

My feelings on this issue are pretty simple: the death penalty should be reserved for the most evil and unrepentant among us. Applying that can be difficult, due to a variety of factors...but I think most would agree a guy who broke into someone's home while they were away doesn't deserve to die.

People wrongly assume the death penalty is equal to murder, when its not. There's several differences, the biggest of which is a lack of arbitrary decision by the jury. When a psycho kills someone, its a personal choice, done for no other core reason than selfish greed. When a court is convened to decided if a criminal deserves death, many different alternatives are placed on the table, and twelve jurors must vote on the best course of action for all involved in the case.

Personally, I think an even more important issue than the death penalty is the current state of the American penal system. Prison needs to be a place that every criminal fears to go, so much that they'd no longer break the law out of desperation to avoid it. From what I've heard, so many convicts have it better on the inside than law-abiding citizens do on the outside, and I find that sickening. We need to take the TVs and conjugal visits away, along with time outdoors, books, and every other luxury. These people violated the rules of civilized society, and as such, they've forfeited their rights to be treated as decently as the rest of us. Prisons should be the equivalent of permanent isolation for the condemned, to the point they suffer as much as those they hurt or killed. Liberals cry foul about "cruelty", but what do they think earned the criminals their stay in prison?!


_________________
God, guns, and guts made America; let's keep all three.