Death Penalty: Yea or Nay?

[Robbert Raets]

Err.....

[mactavish]

I must say that this is the longest, most relatively civil thread I've seen here covering a topic as rife with emotion as the debate over the death penalty.

I watched "The Last Days of WWII" on the History Channel and saw all the stuff regarding the Nuremburg Trials and the execution of the convicted Nazis. While I still believe that the death penalty is wrong and should be avoided at all costs, I still derived a great deal of satisfaction in knowing that those bastards did not escape justice (except for Hermann Goering, who committed suicide via a cyanide poison capsule).

Regardless, I still believe that it is barbaric, and despite the fervent arguments put forward here, I still find the idea of state-sanctioned killing deplorable, even when it is (in the opinion of many) truly deserved.

Sure, the victims had the right to leave free from crime, but killing the criminal does NOT undo the crime. Of course some believe that it provides for justice (in a Biblical sort of way), but "two wrongs do not a right make."

Criminals deserve to pay for their actions, but they (and society) would be far better served by rehabilitation rather than permanent incarceration (in MOST cases) or execution.

I cannot justify the intentional killing of an individual by another individual, organization, or government. I do support the right of the individual to end his own life in the case of prolonged illness and/or incapacitation, but only in specific circumstances.

Just because a person commits a crime so heinous that he deserves to die does not mean that he should die. That is a barbaric, outdated notion that should have been abandoned in the Dark Ages rather than still adhered to in the 21st century.

mactavish out.

[Traska]

Mac,

I'm not saying anyone deserves to die. I don't have the right to decide that. We do have a government, however, that does just that. What I am saying is only this... our only two choices for a certainl level of crime is to kill them or life without parole. I see no sense in locking someone away for the rest of their life and not even trying to rehabilitate them. In that case, I think death makes more sense. If there is ANY alternate sentence, I'd like to see that instead.



------------------
"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

[Cpt. Lundgren]

Sorry for moving this thread up again, and I actually do hope that noone even reads my post. But this is a great button pusher for me. I where back to the board when this topic was only 1/3 of it's current size. But I left again until I knew that I could made a civilized post. Some weeks ago did I have a layout of a long text that really explained my point of view. But I tossed it into the bit bucket.

So here is my short version:
I believe that the death penalty is wrong in every way. I am also allergic against the "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" mentality.

Using deadly force in the defense of own, or others, life is perfectly fine with me. And it is the perceived threat that counts. For example; An unloaded, or fake, gun is treated as a live one. But the second the threat is gone, then the right to use that force is gone.

If anyone have a great urge to hear any longer, more detailed version of any of the two above. Just let me know.

Cpt. Lundgren
Who is far out of sync with anything even remotely connected to this board.

[Phantom]

The Nuremburg Trials? This has always been a bit of a button pusher for me, if you are going to have a trial, have a TRIAL not some drumhead Kangaroo court. As far as I am concerned the Nuremburg Trials were a travisty of Justice. If you are going to go through all the trouble to put a court together then make it fair, most of the defendants were deprived of the simple rights a common criminal takes for granted.

A trial is not to be used as a facade of how civilized we are, a trial is to determine facts. If you are going to kill a war criminal either way, take him out back where no one can see you and put a bullet in his brain pan, don't make a farce out of the justice System, just so you can show the world "look we are nothing like these people, they will have the fair trial they deserve...Ok, guys you all have those pieces of paper with GUILTY on them will need them when the "trial" is over." There was no differnce between the Nuremburg Trials and court system under Hitler, we are just like the monsters we slay, there is no getting away from it, and I find that a frightening thought.

I should say before someone mis-reads what I have posted here. I do fully and whole heartedly believe that everyone of those Nazi bastards got what was owed them. I simply believe that the laws of the land are what separate us from the beasts of the fields, they should not be over-ridden no matter what the case.

I have my asbestos armour on, let the flamage begin.

------------------
In the Praetors Name!

[REG]

Personally, I believe that anyone who is against the death penalty should surrender a portion of their income to upkeep the criminals currently serving a life sentence for multiple killings or killing babies/children. I also hope that you would pay for the upkeep of the alleged suspect Nikolai Soltys who killed his son (which was found recently), his pregnant wife, two cousins (ages under 12), and an aunt and uncle in Sacramento ... as soon as the law enforcement capture him and bring him to justice.

Yes, he is currently at large.

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[This message has been edited by REG (edited 08-22-2001).]

[Rottwang]

In general, I support the death penalty but only when it is applied equally and justly without any bias other than the crime in question.

I believe that it should be limited murderers, certain sexual offenders, and traitors.

I do believe that the death should be done in as a humane way as possible and totally devoid of any sense of celebration.

It is my belief that when a person is put to death for heinous crimes that all should mourn and remember that what had lain in that person's heart also lies in our hearts also, and the only difference between us and them is that we do not act upon our lower natures, and we must be reminded that we should always be vigilant against that which lies within us all.

[REG]

I don't know about sexual offenders (there are varying degrees) unless the crime does involves violence against the victim in the form of dismemberment or mutilation.

But homicide beyond the shadow of the doubt should be.

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[Dan Gurden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by REG:
Personally, I believe that anyone who is against the death penalty should surrender a portion of their income to upkeep the criminals currently serving a life sentence for multiple killings or killing babies/children. </font>

A little one-sided here, not everyone is on death row for that crime.

However, to answer your exact point.

We Do Already. They are called taxes. Yours goes towards bullets, chemicals or Electricity, mine goes towards food, medicine and the like...

Its all a matter of perspective...


------------------
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

[REG]

I know. But let's call on a new tax that allows citizens that oppose the death penalty to pay upkeep for prisoner serving life sentences. That way I am not paying for them.

And you are right. Cases have shown that there are innocents that are serving death sentences. We need to improve the judicial system in the US. Just saying that this system is better than the other countries is no longer a good enough reason NOT to improve. But a death penalty should still be considered for the most blatant, most heinous of crimes.

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[This message has been edited by REG (edited 08-23-2001).]

[Dan Gurden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by REG:
I know. But let's call on a new tax that allows citizens that oppose the death penalty to pay upkeep for prisoner serving life sentences. That way I am not paying for them.</font>

That was the point. I wouldn't want my money paying for the method of execution. So (were I living in the states) its a simple matter of justification to self.

You dont want yours paying for the prisons, I dont want to pay for the execution. Therefore we can Define the cost that you pay for one and I (or someone like me) the other...

Of course thats not the way it works and I know it. But its what makes you sleep at night.

Just remember that (like it or not) part of your execution cost does include long-term incarceration and legal costs. After all you want to be sure your killing the right man. Right?

------------------
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

[This message has been edited by Dan Gurden (edited 08-23-2001).]

[Cpt. Lundgren]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by REG:
Personally, I believe that anyone who is against the death penalty should surrender a portion of their income to upkeep the criminals currently serving a life sentence for multiple killings or killing babies/children.</font>

Well, sort of I do. The taxes here is quite high. I could easily get a higher salary, and lower taxes, by moving my but over to the states. We do have our share of murderers here as well.

There is an debate, quite interesting, which punishment that is the most cost effective. But for me, economy is never an issue if a human life should be taken or not.

Noone here can make me change my mind, and I don't want to try changing anyone else mind (at least not here at the board). I have however found this thread interesting.

Cpt. Lundgren

He he, that much for trying to write a post at work, in a thread like this. 5 new post while I was writing mine.


[This message has been edited by Cpt. Lundgren (edited 08-23-2001).]

[REG]

<font color="orange">Just remember that (like it or not) part of your execution cost does include long-term incarceration and legal costs. After all you want to be sure your killing the right man. Right?</font>

Of course. Our legal system must adhere to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" (yes, I know it currently needed improvement).

And just because I'm in support of the death penalty does not mean I'm against keeping the life sentence. Those two should be available as options. That's all I ask. And once again, it should be for the most blatant, most heinous of crimes, like the assassination of a member of the royal family visiting the US. Or would you prefer that we prevent the extradition of the alleged assassin because you have a death penalty for killing a member of the royal family? (Correct me if I'm wrong since I am not well versed in the laws of your country and the judicial punishments.)

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[This message has been edited by REG (edited 08-23-2001).]

[REG]

Well, no one here can change your mind. Only you can do so voluntarily.

And you're right, economy is not the issue. The issue is the victim or victims whose lives suddenly cut short by the perpetrator. The issue is the victims' surviving family members and close friends who have to deal with such a senseless loss of life.

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[Cpt. Lundgren]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by REG:
Well, no one here can change your mind. Only you can do so voluntarily..</font>

And what a terrible world it would be if this was not true.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
And you're right, economy is not the issue..</font>

I am glad that you agree with me about the economical part.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">
The issue is the victim or victims whose lives suddenly cut short by the perpetrator. The issue is the victims' surviving family members and close friends who have to deal with such a senseless loss of life.</font>

I do agree with you that this is one of the issues. But it is only a part (although an emotional heavy weighter) of the whole. Most, but not all of it, has already been mentioned on this thread earlier.

/Lundgren