Printable View
As a group of seemingly well-educated and often highly-opinionated individuals (heh), what are your thoughts regarding captial punishment?
I. Appropriateness (i.e. when, if ever)?
II. Method (i.e. electrocution, lethal injection, stoning, etc.)?
III. Restrictions (i.e. age, extenuating circumstances, etc.)?
IV. Further comments (i.e. that don't fall into one of the three aforementioned sections)?
mactavish out.
I used to support the death penalty for murder (intentional and pre-meditated), rape, and stuff like treason against the United States et. al.
I no longer believe that the death penalty is appropriate in any instance, but not because it is "more expensive" than housing a criminal for life, because it's "inhumane," or any other argument typical of bleeding heart liberal sentiment...
I think that it is inappropriate because:
1. It is not uniform. States make up the rules as they see fit, and I find that disturbing.
2. It does not deter further crime (except by those executed). If it did, we'd have seen a marked decrease rather than a steady increase over the past 20+ odd years.
I don't care if religion supports it or not. I don't care if the government supports it or not. I believe that taking a human life (even a depraved, demented homicidal maniac's) is unacceptable for an "enlightened" culture.
Besides, who else does it? Those nations to which the United States compares itself (i.e. Britain, Germany, Canada, etc.) DON'T do it and those nations that the United States often finds itself at odds with (i.e. China, Iran, etc.) DO do it!
Hmm... perhaps the United States isn't so enlightened after all.
mactavish out.
[This message has been edited by mactavish (edited 07-23-2001).]
My biggest problem with capital punishment is that it seems that sometimes the wrong person is executed.
I suppose the death penalty should generally be limited to murder and sexual crimes.
I think the method should be as painless as possible. I see it more as preventing further crime than as punishment.
I tend to believe that a cold blooded criminal should be treated the same no matter what age. If neccessary to prevent further crime, I extend this to the mentally challenged.
I wish the death penalty were not more expensive than life in prison.
I wish we didn't have to keep so many people in prisons. I do not like the idea of parole. What would be best would be a way to prevent the crimes.
Remember, murder is defined as the taking of an innocent life.
I believe Norway is seen as an enlightened country, and although they had laws against the death penalty, they executed quisling, a WW2 traitor.
Monotheists should consider the ancient Israelite view of capital punishment. The law of Moses was fulfilled, but if the death penalty were truly awful, it wouldn't have been sanctioned by it.
Just my views, just my response asked for by mactavish.
------------------
Games. The Final Product. These are the books of the Star Trek RPG. Their five year license. To explore strange new roles. To breathe new life into get togethers. To boldly play what no fan has played before!
As long as it is possible to be 100% sure that the person charged with the crime (murder, treason etc.) is guilty. That is the problem, cases like Bundy and Barnardo I have no qualms about seeing them dead. If there is the slightest chance that the courts might be wrong, then given them life.
The last person executed in Canada was later found to be innocent.
------------------
In the Praetors Name!
Okay, that argument pisses me off every time.
All areas of life carry the possibility of fatal injury to the innocent: trucking, driving automobiles, walking across the street, and so on.
Just because something has the possible consequence of leading to a small number of deaths of innocent people, that does NOT mean that those activities should be avoided.
Certainly it is deplorable when an innocent person is executed, but the question is not whether that is good or bad (I would hope most would say that executing an innocent person is bad), but whether the benefits of capital punishment outweigh the negative consequences.
In my opinion, they do not, but the argument can also be made that "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs." I'd sure hate if I were unjustly executed, and I doubt that I'd find solace in the knowledge that my death may better society by preventing criminals from taking illegal actions on the chance that they might be executed, but if I KNEW that one innocent man's death would improve society for everyone...
... I still wouldn't do it. But I can understand the logic.
If the death of one innocent child would (for certain) lead to a cure for cancer, would it be justified to kill that child? In my opinion, it is not justified, even if it does relieve the suffering of millions (in the long run).
Of course that's just my opinio; I could be wrong.
mactavish out.
>I wish the death penalty were not more expensive than life in prison.
I wish no one murdered anyone. But we have to deal with the world as it is, not as we wish it were. The death penalty IS more expensive than life in prison (in the USA, this century). Innocent people ARE occasionally executed.
>If there is the slightest chance that the courts might be wrong, then given them life.
How do you determine the court might be wrong? Another court? In the USA, if there is any reasonable chance the court might be wrong, they're supposed to be found NOT GUILTY (reasonable doubt, anyone?).
The death penalty is not the answer. Sadly, there is no easy answer. But the death penalty has a clear drawback (exection of innocent people cannot be undone) and serves no benefit to society (does not save money, nor is there any evidence that it reduces crime). Those are the clear-cut pragmatic reasons as well as moral ones.
I oppose the death penalty.
On edit: mactavish said this more eloquently. Thanks, mac.
[This message has been edited by Diamond (edited 07-23-2001).]
There are a few places I diverge from ibertarian policies: the death penalty is one of them. I support it. Strongly.
It should be used in cases of murder, rape, TREASON or espionage. (And maybe those bastards that stand in front of you in the expres lane with 20 items and a checkbook...oops! I forgot my ID... Can you wait while I get a money order?)
Hang the bastards. Why waste the electricity? Lethal injection's fine with me, too... I think killing someone's more humane than leaving them in a cage for the rest of their life. I NEVER understood that concept. And rehabilitation? In a facility with a bunch of other criminals? Good luck.
Is it immoral? Sure. But there is a moral balance in the universe: sometimes an evil deed accomplishes more good on the grand scale of things. You don't think WWII was evil? But how about the alternative?
Can the wrong person be executed? Sure, and it's a tragedy. But show me anything in life that IS certain. (Okay...death and bad TV...) But this idea we can all be safe 100% of the time is b.s. Too many people out there are trying to wrap the world in nerf so we don't get hurt or say bad things to hurt other people's feelings. Sometimes, s**t happens.
That was my attitude when I copped a bullet in the ribs BY ACCIDENT on a riccochet. Dcotor: "How do you feel?" Me: "Crappy, but s**t happens. Usually to me."
EXtenuating circumstances: that's what the trial was for, gents. Jury of your peers, and all..?
In general, I think there's been a disturbing trend in the world away from having people take responsibility for their own actions. Part of it is this 'criminals aren't at fault, it's society' crap we see. The death penalty should be used sparingly -- but it should ALWAY be an options for the really heinous crimes.
As for the argument about states having wildly conflicting laws about the death penalty -- read the 10th amendment again. This is a whackin' big country with very divergent cultures throughout. what might seem abhorent in Michigan seems common sense in New Mexico...well, everywhere but Santa Fe.
The states have a much better idea of the needs and wants of their residents than a centralized federal government would have.
Case in point: living in Uzbekistan under Soviet rule. Or being a Gascon in France. Doesn't work well, people.
I apologize, I did not realize you were inviting a debate. You asked for an opinion on the subject and I gave my opinion freely. The death of an individual in a auto accident is tragic, but it is still an ACCIDENT. Pulling the switch on Ted Bundy was no accident, it was a diliberate act. And therefore has no place in this converstion.
Personally, I can think of much better use of death row inmates, such as; workers in extremly hazardous areas, medical research something that benefits humanity in a equal way in which they harmed humanity. If they live, they live. If they die, so much the better. But, then you are infringing on their rights, please, once a person becomes a convict their rights should be stripped from them. The convict rights people are the ones who make me sick, and parole for murderers...Tell me, the people they killed, when do they get parole? If you are going to use life as a punishment then make it mean LIFE not 25 years.
If push comes to shove, then yes I am for the Death Penalty, but as someone posted above there has to be standard rules governing its use. There has to be certain criterion for the use of the DP, it should not be arbitraly assigned by the DA. If someone comits a crime and gets Death, then someone else who commits the same crime should get the same, even if they are wealthy enough to buy their way out.
Although I would see 5 guilty go free, rather then see one innocent swing.
So, again you ask. Again I answer. Take it as you like.
------------------
In the Praetors Name!
Oh, and as to the method of execution, exactly the same way they killed their victims. Even if that means tossing them into a wood chipper.
------------------
In the Praetors Name!
Trials determine guilt, the law determines punishment.
I'm not one of those "who are trying to wrap the world in nerf", silly concept, as you say s**t happens. Usually to good people. However, a court of law is not "real life" they deal in ideals, not what is happening outside the courthouse while the trial is going on. Those outside occurances are just that. When I say that a jury should be 100% sure before they send a man to the "gallows" has nothing to do with the three people who died in the Ottawa area this weekend in car accidents. Anyone who makes a connection in this case is being very naive. Yes, s**T happens in real life. However, I'm sorry but that excuse does not cut anything with me when it comes out 2 years down the line when the evidence the police "lost" finally resurfaces and the guy was innocent. Sorry doesn't fly. And there is no nerf involved in my thinking.
------------------
In the Praetors Name!
Phatmo said:
"The death of an individual in a auto accident is tragic, but it is still an ACCIDENT. Pulling the switch on Ted Bundy was no accident, it was a diliberate act. And therefore has no place in this converstion."
I'm not talking about the execution itself being an accident... that's a very deliberate thing.
I'm talking about the accidental conviction and subsequent execution of an innocent person. Sometimes innocent people die, whether by a miscarriage of justice, by falling from the high steel, or being devoured by wolves. Just because people fall while building skyscrapers doesn't mean that all high-rise construction should be halted. Just because an innocent (and unwary) hiker is eaten by a pack of wolves doesn't mean that we should get rid of hiking in the woods.
Likewise, the accidental execution of an innocent man does not automatically mean that the death penalty should be chucked. If the good outweighs the bad, then it is logical to continue that action.
I'm not arguing with you, Phantom. I agree with many of the things that you said. I'm just against the death penalty so that if I ever "accidentally" murder a busload of people, or "by mistake" sell nuclear secrets to the Iraqi government, I won't get the needle but will instead be sodomized in prison for the rest of my worthless life (I personally think that gang rape in prison is far more a deterent than execution anyway).
mactavish out.
Someone would think a respected country like the USA should not use such babarism anymore.
But they do! And your government strongly supports it. Apart from the fact that i consider some of Bush`s politics as highly offensive and arrogant, he has caused diplomatic problems with the chinese already.
Capital punishment is not a solution for crime in general. The crime statistics show that the criminals aren`t afraid of a death penalty. In my opinion the US crime problem originates from the second amendment, the high unemployment rate in lower social classes and the social and economical discrimination of blacks.
There are more executed innocents than one may believe. I just read an article about it.
But the most important fact is in my opinion:
Should we really use a punishment like this anymore? It not only is contrary to the humanistic progresses we have made, but we also go down to the same level as a murderer. Do the same to them, what they did to someone else? "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"? Can murder really be justified by the term "judge" before your name? And it is murder for sure.And there may even be some criminals who can be reintegrated in the society after there time in jail.
We don`t use the capital punishment anymore since the war and it works well here. And mactavish is completly right! In this aspect the US is no different than China.
I know it sounds a bit harsh, but i didn`t mean to offend anyone. But take the time and at least think about it a moment.
This is a subject I have many problems with at the mo' (I find myself hopping the fence on a case-by-case basis, so I generally keep quiet about it while my brain takes a vacation).
However, questions to add fire to the debate...
Who here has had their teenage girlfriend raped and beaten to the point of death? Had their 6-year old child turned into an inside-out ragdoll by a terrorist bomb and had to identify the body? Or been tortured slowly over the period of two months and needed reconstructive surgery?
Not me. But every day I read about something similar in the national and city newspapers. If it happened to you, how would it alter your view?
I can certainly understand why some oppose the death penalty. I simply don't agree with them.
correction: murder is the intentional destruction of innocent human life.
I'm against it in pretty much all circumstances on the belief that it is almost always wrong to kill.
I could support it if it were the only way to protect people from the guilty. However, in most industrialized countries, that is not the case.
(Similarly, I could kill in war if it met the definition of what I would consider a "just war". The difference being you have no control over the enemy soldier and are therefore in a kill or be killed situation. A captured, convicted criminal is not in such a state where they can kill. An enemy soldier is.)
How would I feel if a family member were killed, raped, beaten, etc.? Horrible. I'd want to pay the bastard back for what they did. I'd want to kill them, make them suffer.
But that is why we have laws. I do not believe that laws exist to fulfill the need for vengeance, no matter how just that vengeance is.