Capital Punishment

[pulkit]

I just saying its not your choice.If they want to die there suicide.

 

 

Hey the guy on death row already had his choice when he commited the crime, you can't have all the choices in life that'll just be chaos then.

[Tesseract]

Hey the guy on death row already had his choice when he commited the crime, you can't have all the choices in life that'll just be chaos then.

You can at least have the choice of death...I would be better if we had a criminal system like in the movie "Demolition Man" or "Tekwar".

[pulkit]

You can at least have the choice of death...I would be better if we had a criminal system like in the movie "Demolition Man" or "Tekwar".

 

Though I havn't seen these movies, I fully agree that there should be a choice given over the mode of death,i.e., lethal injection, electric chair etc.

 

But again, you can think of such a system being implemented in the developed world. Where I live (India) I do not believe they would care to give such choices considering that on average a death penalty would only follow a 10 year+ ordeal of court cases and appeals.........here theres just the single method of the old British days........."hanged till death"

[Skye]

But then don't you feel the capital punishment is a very strong psychological tool as well, just knowing the exsistance of capital punishment in your country may deter you from a larger crime.

A reason given for the death penalty here has been that it is used on people who seem to be irreversibly conditioned to commit terrible crimes. So presumably deterrents would have little effect either.

[pulkit]

A reason given for the death penalty here has been that it is used on people who seem to be irreversibly conditioned to commit terrible crimes. So presumably deterrents would have little effect either.

 

 

People like that constitute probably (and hopefully ) a verysmall percentage of society. The death penalty can certainly act as a detterent to the rest of society, so that they do not switch over sides.

[JaKiri]

there are normal non criminals that will do this voluntarily anyway

 

And because people do things voluntarily, we can force people to do things, am I right, just like we force everyone to have sex with butch men called Steve from birmingham.

[blike]

Before I get started in this thread [because I'm going to disagree with the majority of you], justice is defined as "the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments." First and formost, the purpose of any justice system is to execute justice; not to rehabilitate, not to isolate. Secondary purposes, such as isolating criminals from the general population and rehabilitating criminals do not constitute the foundation of any justice system. In short, a justice system exists to render each man what he is due.

 

As such, the primary purpose of any punishment is to execute justice. They do not exist merely to serve as deterrents. (I have a feeling that some of you will argue this point. However, do not argue this point and then turn around and tell me the death penalty does not work as a deterrent.) This is evidenced by the fact that the punishment for any crime generally increases in severity with the harm it causes. Surely we would all cry foul if our car was stolen and the judge only sentenced the criminal to an overnight stay in prison. But why? Because the criminal has not been punished in accordance with the severity of personal harm he has caused us.

[Dave]

Just a quickie:

 

If we can't be 100% sure that someone committed the crime that they are accused of but execute them anyway, then what happens if it turns out to be wrong? Send the family some flowers and a ham joint?

[Tesseract]

then what happens if it turns out to be wrong? Send the family some flowers and a ham joint?

And how would that happen?And whats a ham joint?

[Dave]

And how would that happen?

 

Please tell me you're joking.

 

What if we convict someone falsely, through for instance incorrect evidence, police corruption, small (or indeed large) llamas eating their way through a piece of vital evidence, etc

[Tesseract]

Please tell me you're joking.

 

What if we convict someone falsely' date=' through for instance incorrect evidence, police corruption, small (or indeed large) llamas eating their way through a piece of vital evidence, etc[/quote']

But how would be know he isnt guilty!!!

[Dave]

That would depend entirely on the case.

[pulkit]

When a country decides to allow the death penalty and give its justice system the power to execute such sentences, I believe the risk of a unfair judgement will always be there.

 

There can't possibly exsist a perfect system in which only the guilty get the punishment.......... supose there were no death penalty, these so called innocent-convicts would still be getting a very severe punishment such as life imprisonment, how is that any better ?

[Glider]

There was a program on a couple of nights ago, reviewing the case of a man who has recently been released from prison on the grounds that he is in fact innocent. He was jailed for murder twenty-five years ago! If he had been killed, what would we say? "Ooops"? What would we do? Execute the executioner or the judge? Where is this mans' justice? Miscarriages of justice do happen, and more frequently than we like to think. Under these circumstances, any sentance that is irreversible is unconscionable.

 

In my opinion, if the state kills an innocent (and it has happened), it loses the right to enforce the death penalty. The state is not infallible. This is reason enough to be wary of the death penalty. At the moment, it is acceptable to convict somebody if they are found to be guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'. If you intend to kill them, I would suggest they need to found guilty 'beyond any and all doubt', i.e. absolute certainty.

 

As for enforced organ donation, that's just too far beyond the pale. So, we take a kidney. If they're subsequently found innocent, at least they're still alive? Jeesus! Alive, with a significantly reduced life expectancy, and a strictly controlled diet for the rest of their shortened lives. Not to mention they would have to live with the psychological fallout from being forced to undergo an extremely invasive violation utterly against their will. Where is the justice in that? You would expect them to carry on with their lives as good, stable citizens, with a healthy respect for the state? No, I don't think so.

[NavajoEverclear]

I think killing is wrong and bad.There should be a new stronger word for killing like bad-wrong, or badong; Yes, killing is badong and from now on i will stand for the opposite of killing, gnodab.

 

hah that's a really cool word, i'm going start using that. Hopefully it will become popular slang, and eventually entered into websters. Anyway though, you've already established that you think killing is badong, which i agree, but please read my last post and address my point. Why is killing wrong? There must be a reason you think so. I've explained my reason for my opinion had nothing to do with hate or vengence. Just the simple fact that if we've already decided they aren't ever going to be free in society, what is the point in keeping them around. Furthermore the death should be quick and painless. Theres absolutely no purpose for pain here. So you see my idea is about minimum suffering, because suffering wastes time and energy, and in this case it's obviously not helping anyone grow.

 

I'm going to admit my original idea is was very wrong--- because the justice system is very corrupt, very many mistakes happen, and there are many questionable cases where the killer killed out of need, instead of hate, but if the killer was the attacker and cant be directly linked to self-defense by the legally accepted definition . . . or similar motives that can be rehabilited of (serial killers would never fit into this catagory). And even if the system was decent and unbiased, there would still be mistakes. So the capital punishement is reserved only for cases of absolute certainty. Only there is my opinion applicable.

 

YT's idea is absolutely brilliant. The not-so-certainly murderers, if physically elligible, are harvested for blood donations, liver fragments (as the liver regenerates), and maybe kidneys. The certainly killers are taken from life painlessly and ALL their organs are put to good use.

[Dave]

To emphasise what Glider was saying: over here, we had a case called the Birmingham Six who were arrested and imprisoned for the murder of a paper-boy (I think). 16 years down the line, 5 of them came out and 1 had died in prison, I can't remember how. And all because of a case of police corruption and making up evidence.

 

So 6 people in the USA would have been executed, and for no reason whatsoever.

 

The way I see it is this: you can compensate someone for putting them in prison to a certain extent, but you can't bring someone back to life.

[blike]

Mistrials and false convictions aren't an argument against the death penalty, they are arguments against the implementation of it in a given system.

 

What do you say if someone is proven guilty, or someone caught in the act, or for someone who has confessed?

[ed84c]

1. where is the line drawn to 'certain guilt' and non certain guilt? who caught them in the act? are they telling the truth? are photos real and not been fiddled with?

 

2. People kill themselves in prison so we prosume prison is worse than death.

 

3. Corpral punishment; yes, chop of their hands, make them donate an orgam or make them eat glass or something.

[Dave]

Mistrials and false convictions aren't an argument against the death penalty, they are arguments against the implementation [/i'] of it in a given system.

 

Under the context of the thread, I believe it's a valid argument.

 

What do you say if someone is proven guilty, or someone caught in the act, or for someone who has confessed?

 

There have been numerous occasions where people have been found guilty of a crime that they did not commit. Luckily for them, these people were either not sentenced to death, or the death penaulty did not exist in that particular country. Would it be in the interest of any justice system to execute innocent civilians?

[pulkit]

Innocent people being given the death sentence by mistake will always be a problem.........but do you not think that those who acctualy commit heinous crimes deserve to die ?

Is there no need to clense society of such people quickly and efficiently ?

Life imprisonment does seem (atleast to me like) as a let-off for people who have say murdered "innocent" people in cold blood.

[YT2095]

And because people do things voluntarily, we can force people to do things, am I right, just like we force everyone to have sex with butch men called Steve from birmingham.

well, hardly the same thing, and I never considered having sex with someone of the same gender as part of the equasion either, Nice one

 

but back to the point, anyone found NOT GUILTY after a term on death row, would still be alive (using my idea) and would then be entittled to replacement parts (free gratis) for the rest of their remaining life, as well as the current system of recompence. but at least they`re still around to enjoy it!!!!!!

[NavajoEverclear]

Innocent people being given the death sentence by mistake will always be a problem.........but do you not think that those who acctualy commit heinous crimes deserve to die ?

Is there no need to clense society of such people quickly and efficiently ?

Life imprisonment does seem (atleast to me like) as a let-off for people who have say murdered "innocent" people in cold blood.

 

my point exactly, except if i were to use the word deserve, i would use it without any emotional connotations.

The purpose of their death has nothing to do with making them pay. God will take care of that. Kind of like you said, they should just be elliminated as quickly as possible, without any crap about making them suffer for the crime. Their suffering serves noone anything but unnessisary pain, waste of energy focussing on 'giving them what they deserve', when such is impossible. Allowing them to live just stretches that out even more. THAT is morally wrong. Execution is a simple procedure to bypass all that.

 

Please don't take that out of context, yes execution is evil if the individual doesn't deserve it, i am assuming that is not the case. But the real system wont be based on assumptions, and absolute certainty of justice will be high priority over the execution.

[blike]

Under the context of the thread, I believe it's a valid argument.

It's not a valid argument against capital punishment itself. This thread addresses two issues: What we think of the death penalty itself, and our ideas about how it is implemented. I only addressed why I think the death penalty, in theory, is accepable and the only way to serve justice in certain situations.

 

 

There have been numerous occasions where people have been found guilty of a crime that they did not commit. Luckily for them, these people were either not sentenced to death, or the death penaulty did not exist in that particular country. Would it be in the interest of any justice system to execute innocent civilians?

I agree. The purpose of posting that comment was an attempt to discern whether you disagree with the way the death penalty is administered (i.e. it's flawed because innocent people can be executed), or whether executing someone for murder is inherently wrong. Those are two separate issues, but it wasn't clear from your initial post.

 

If you believe the death penalty is inherently wrong, arguing that innocent people might get executed is side-stepping into another issue. I would like to hear arguments as to why the practice of execution is wrong.

 

There have been some (rather weak) comments regarding the issue, but I have yet to hear a solid argument.

 

I think that killing is wrong. Why is it ok for the government to kill? I think it's an easy way out too.

Killing is wrong and bad and watever......... It is not right for the judiciary to take the life of another human .............

[atinymonkey]

I only addressed why I think the death penalty' date=' in theory, is accepable and the only way to serve justice in certain situations.

[/quote']

 

I understand that justice is a tricky thing to implement, especially as we cannot be specific unless we go case by case, but how do you see Justice being served? I’m not ever sure the difference between revenge and justice is adequately explored when discussing the death penalty and don’t want the difference to undermine the quality of the thread later on.

 

Personally, I don’t think it achieves any real purpose. Killing a murderer does not bring his victim back to life, it simply ends another life. Even the Justice served up to the victim’s families is off set by the pain to the murderers family. That’s taking it for granted that the victim’s family actually want the murderer to be put to death, as it is often seen as an easy way out.

 

I can’t quite remember but I think the United Nations stated in the Declaration of Human Rights that a death penalty was a cruel and unusual punishment. It was something issued in the 1950’s after the shellshock from the holocaust. The declaration was one of the reasons why the UK dropped the death penalty. Even if the US chooses it’s internal system of justice on it’s own needs it has to be said that the death penalty is something that is deplorable and repulsive to other nations.

 

There appears to be a rather unusual situation in the US where death is treated with celebrity and an almost morbid fascination has occurred. I don’t know if that’s a view I’ve got because I’m tired or just saturated with the media from America. Perhaps it is a groundless statement without knowing the society. It certainly appears to be a factor when people like Oliver Stone go out of their way to point out the link in American culture.

 

It could just be America has a more pragmatic approach to Justice than we do in Europe and both approaches are valid for each type of society. Perhaps we just accept that polar views are always irreconcilable and move on.

[Sayonara]

I find it interesting that nobody mentioned the calls for clemency that often come from the families of victims.