Death Penalty: Yea or Nay?

[qerlin]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Phantom:
First Rule of History.

The winners make the history, and charge the losers with war crimes. Sometimes they are right, others not so much.

</font>

Hiroshima & Nagasaki weren't just picked out of a hat; they were MAJOR centers for the Japanese war effort. And the effect of the A-bomb was a whole lot less destructive than the bombing of Desden.


Sorry for that response...didn't realize others had already dived head-long into it.

Actually, this conversation has convinced me I'm pro-death: abortion, capital punishment, suicide, stepping on ants & other bugs, etc...

Ah, heck with it...I'm off to play Rainbow Six.


[This message has been edited by qerlin (edited 07-26-2001).]

[Traska]

A cpuple of points.

I never compared humans to animals. I said we (yes we, all of us, you, me, the guy who delivers your newspaper) ARE animals. Mammlas to be exact. Very intelligent aniomals, yes, but animals nontheless. Unless anyone here believes we evolved from some form of lichen...

Also, execution should be reserved only for truly heinous crimes. Murder is not a truly heinous crime. It is terrible, it is horrible, it is wicked... but it is also somewhat commonplace. The death penalty should be reserved for those who kill many people (serial killers, bombers), or kill in such a way as to leave no doubt as to the depths of their depravity (devouring them, hanging their entrials on streetlights).

Third, I disagree that if we support the death penalty we should also be willing to pullt he switch ourselves. That's what we pay the government to do! You know what, I love milk, but I'm not about to milk a cow. I love potatoes, but you don't see me plowing fields. We have ways of assigning responsibilities, and we do them. I als support law and order, does that mean I should be able to be drafted into the police force?



------------------
"You got your Star Trek Trek in my roleplaying game!"
"You got your roleplaying game in my Star Trek!"
LUGTrek, two great tastes that taste great together

[Traska]

Okay, this is going to earn me flames, but so be it.

Humans are animals (no really, we are!) When an animal shows that it is violent,murderous, cannot be trained or even trusted, and shows every intention of repeating the horrible thing it did, we destroy it. We don't lock it in a cage because frankly, we doubt there's any good that will do.

I feel the same way about those criminals that err so badly that we don't feel we can ever trust them again.

Again I point to McVeigh, and Dahmer.

Food for thought.



------------------
"You got your Star Trek Trek in my roleplaying game!"
"You got your roleplaying game in my Star Trek!"
LUGTrek, two great tastes that taste great together

[First of Two]

"ANY innocent loss of life is unacceptable."

I agree. Which is why we should only execute people who a) admit guilt or b) are proved to be guilty by hard physical evidence [like a videotape of them committing the crime, or DNA evidence]. We should no execute people who are found circumstantially guilty.

[Dan Gurden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by C. Huth:
What do you mean by innocent? By what standard are you judging this alleged innocence?</font>

In the context of the sentence. Innocent of the crime that you are being executed for...

Therefore if you didn't do it, I fell it totally unacceptable that you should be executed just because a jury of your peers says you did...

This is an ideological statement and not one that is easy to see in the real world, but it does happen that innocent men are executed both in Calguards 'bad countries' and in the USA, whatever the reason from their mental capacities, being in the wrong place at the wrong time, the cause is irrelevant.

Until someone can show me a foolproof method of determining guilt and innocence, I am against the final solution. I will probably remain so even AFTER such a mythical device is created, but at least the worry about convicting a man who is innocent of the crime will have gone.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
What is justice, anyway? Is it making the punishment fit the crime? How does it differ from vengeance?[/B]</font>

That is a point that keeps cropping up, and it is not only difficult to differentiate, but as a hypothetical.

A man is executed for his crimes, nothing special, he did the crime, now comes punishment. That is, allegedly, justice. (Although the punishment doesn't need to be extreme depending on the crime, I just used that example as relevant to the discussion.)

Now add a crowd of jeering civilians, telling the convict to go to hell, and a feeling of relief that 'the scum is no more'.
That is vengence.

If you take joy in another mans death, right or wrong, thats vengence.



------------------
DanG.

"Hi, I'm Commander Troy McClure, you might remember me from other academy training holo-simulations as, Abandon Ship, the quickest way out, and I sense danger, 101 things you dont need a Betazoid to know..."

http://www.theventure.freeserve.co.uk

[Dan Gurden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by calguard66:
The "enlightenment" (your word, not mine) comes from the "due process"... the system that distributes and decides the punishment. The US system is fundamentally sound. I see no rational way to compare it to any of the others that have been mentioned, except that the US and these other nations use some of the same punishments. It's like saying a surgeon and a gang member are the same because they both cut people... WHY they do the cutting is what matters.
</font>

The US system might, in your view, be sound, but it still results in the deaths of the innocent.

If you can guarantee that not even 1 man sitting on death row has the slightest possibility that he could be innocene. If you can provide proof positive that all are guilty... And I dont mean 'The courts judged them guilty', because human beings make mistakes, and emotions can cloud better judgement, its a fundamental fact. If you (or anyone else for that matter) can guarantee this...

THEN I might agree.

But while the possibility exists, and historical records are with me, that mistakes can and DO get made, I see no reason to support a system that allows the wrong man to receive the final sentencing...



------------------
DanG.

"Hi, I'm Commander Troy McClure, you might remember me from other academy training holo-simulations as, Abandon Ship, the quickest way out, and I sense danger, 101 things you dont need a Betazoid to know..."

http://www.theventure.freeserve.co.uk

[Dan Gurden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by calguard66:
AAAKkkk! Now there's an inhumane punishment...

</font>

We agree at last!



------------------
DanG.

"Hi, I'm Commander Troy McClure, you might remember me from other academy training holo-simulations as, Abandon Ship, the quickest way out, and I sense danger, 101 things you dont need a Betazoid to know..."

http://www.theventure.freeserve.co.uk

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dan Gurden:
The US system might, in your view, be sound, but it still results in the deaths of the innocent.

If you can guarantee that not even 1 man sitting on death row has the slightest possibility that he could be innocene. If you can provide proof positive that all are guilty... And I dont mean 'The courts judged them guilty', because human beings make mistakes, and emotions can cloud better judgement, its a fundamental fact. If you (or anyone else for that matter) can guarantee this...

THEN I might agree.

But while the possibility exists, and historical records are with me, that mistakes can and DO get made, I see no reason to support a system that allows the wrong man to receive the final sentencing...

</font>

The US highway system results in the deaths of innocents every day.

There are plenty of situations where a mistake could result in death... the surgeon is an example. I can't guarantee that he won't make a mistake... but I need the operation anyway.

I think expecting 100% acurracy from anything designed by a human is a bit naive.

However, as other have said, we've reached the point where I'm not going to convice you... and you're not going to convince me.

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[First of Two]

Definitions:

Justice: When the punishment fits (is equal in severity to, but not greater than, the crime. This is known as 'making the punishment fit the crime' or, disparagingly, as 'eye-for-an-eye' justice. Examples include executing murders, making financial restitution, and jail sentences mandated by the law.

Vengeance: When the punishment is greater in severity than the crime. Practiced by most non-Judaic tribes in biblical times, and many 'uncivilized' nations today. (In Biblical times, 'eye-for-an-eye was novel in its abundance of mercy, compared to the prevailing systems of justice.) Examples include wiping out the family of someone who offends you, lynch mobs, executing and imprisoning people for making non-violent political statements.

And as for the other question: Yes, I would be willing to serve as executioner, with the caveat that my death-penalty qualifications are met - utter proof through DNA or videotape or admission. I see it as no more terrible a task than weeding a garden. Yes, I could have killed McVeigh, or Dahmer, or the men who raped and tortured my gf as a child, without it bothering my conscience.

[Fortunae]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Surak:

Capital punishment is not a solution for crime in general. The crime statistics show that the criminals aren`t afraid of a death penalty.
</font>

I disagree with you. I emphatically disagree with you. I wholeheartedly without question disagree with you.

Why doesn't the death penalty work to deter crime according to "statistics" (by the way, I think when people mention such things they should have to supply those numbers and the source for independent confirmation)...because its not *enforced* enough, I think.

I think if we are going to have a death penalty we should enforce it. I think if we have *any* laws they should be enforced. I think if we have laws we chose not to enforce we should remove them from cluttering up the minds of Lawyers and Law Books. If we aren't going to uniformly apply the death penalty whenever the penalty is pronounced we should just do away with it.

But, I'd rather we enforced it. Back when we used to enforce it, criminals at least considered that outcome...sure, many of them still committed crimes, but once they were caught they didn't *repeat* them again, now did they?

For that matter, I think we should *expand* the crimes that carry the (enforced) death penalty. For example, I think if you sell an illegal narcotic that kills the user, you should be charged with first degree murder.

ex: You sell crack to someone, they use it, they die, you should face charges of first degree murder because you *knew* it could kill them and you sold it anyway...it was a lethal item, used in the commission of a crime.

I think you should be charged with ATTEMPTED murder for selling above item or herion whether the person dies or not as its pretty clear to anybody those drugs can and do kill their users (not always, not always right away, but it *can* take you out the very first time). I suppose some of you might say that such things should be applied to anything that can kill you, I clear this up now and say, only Illegal things...so until cigarettes are illegal or cars are illegal in THIS country, they don't apply.

I am willing to bet that if you were facing the enforced death penalty for narcotics sales, as well as the gang violence that often accompanies such things, you might just reconsider. If you do a drive by, get caught convicted and are dead within a year, your "peers" may decide to quit before they are caught. If not? Well, there is plenty of room for them in the cemetary too.

Am I barbaric? Well, I don't speak Greek so maybe I am. Read carefully, I don't like violence...I don't like taking lives...but that didn't stop me from serving my country in the military. It didn't stop me from doing my duty. I believe that people who willing risk the lives or take the lives of others in the pursuit of a crime are enemies of my country, our ideals and our way of life and should be treated like any other hostile force-using enemy -- that means removed as a threat in a permanent fashion.

But I singled out your post in particular because of your nation of origin and your comment about "enlightened times".

I lived in *your* country for almost 4 years while serving *my* country. Why was I there? Because *your* country twice in a century waged war on its neighbors and forced *my* country to sacrifice the lives of our citizens to stop you.

But that was before your time, so I don't try to blame any of that on you...and your current government didn't have anything to do with it, so why do I bring it up at all?

Because, I really enjoyed Germany and the life there, but I still remember with perfect clarity one of the first lessons I was taught when I arrived for my in country orientation. "If you hear the local police yell Halt or Freeze...regardless of what you are doing, stop and don't move." Why was this? Because they would *SHOOT* us if we moved and it would be okay....nothing even close to Miranda rules...nothing about Police Brutality.

I saw with my own eyes Polizi beat down some Turks with their rubberized clubs that bounce for more pummeling action with each swing -- ah, German efficiency. I saw the sporty looking guys on motorcycles with their submachine guns...where as I, on gate guard of a Kaserne, wasn't allowed to have live ammunition even if the Red Brigade wanted to come on down and bomb our gate.

I had friends who got too rowdy and drunk at a night club get beaten up by the German Police..but we accepted this all as just a different country with different rules and different way of life. We never called your countrymen Barbaric for it.

Anyway... I respectfully suggest that before you start casting remarks about Barbarism in *my* country, you take care of the...interesting aspects of life in your own country...once Germany is Perfect I will be one of the First to rave that we should all follow their noble perfect example.

Peace.

[qerlin]

After reading all of the arguments, I've come to the decision that I am not just pro-choice...I'm pro-death.

Abortion -- go for it. Suicide -- here's a rope. Death penalty -- stealing peanuts again were you? BLAM! Hunting -- is it furry & cute? BLAM! Dismantle the WHO, get rid of the HMOs -- sick? Tough! Too stupid not to stay off the top of a ladder, use a chainsaw to whittle, jump out of a plane with a parachute? Bye-bye...

DEATH, the great equalizer. And really f***ing inevitable.

Boy, that felt good...

[calguard66]

Actually, in California, a drug dealer COULD be charged with second degree murder if a customer dies from an overdose...

It's called "reckless disregard". If you do something, knowing there was a high probability that someone would die as a result of your actions, you can be charged with murder if someone does die.

I'm not sure whether the fact that the "victim" effectively had to knowingly poison himself would be considered an "intervening act"...

------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[Paul]

Okay - I'll firstly admit that this is the first time I've seen this thread, and I didn't wade through all three pages before posting this point. I only looked through the first page.

Having said that, my point is short and sweet.

I support the Death Penalty. And to those who argue "What about the rights of the criminal? Doesn't he have the right to live?", I say "What about the rights of the (criminal's) victim(s)? Doesn't he/she have the right to live/not be raped/not be violated?"

In committing a crime (any crime, really, but for this purpose capital crimes), the perpertrator removes the right of the victim (the law-given right, I add) to not have the crime visited upon him/her. In turn, the criminal waives his/her rights.

------------------
"...and more controversial than Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters Where God went Wrong, Some More of God's Greatest Mistakes, and Who is this God Person Anyway?"
- The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Douglas Adams (dec.)

[Robbert Raets]

Originally posted by Phantom:
First Rule of History.
The winners make the history, and charge the losers with war crimes. Sometimes they are right, others not so much.

That's the same thing the Serbs are saying about the Yugoslavia Tribunal...
(Not that I'm listening to them)

Anyway, i'm against death penalties.

(But then again, I'm also against the U.S. weapon legislation and the obviously inadequate voting system...)

------------------
'Who would have thought... A brave Ferengi!'
Gowron, to Quark, son of Keldar.

[StyroFoam Man]

This message has been removed on request by the
poster