sepultallica Posted December 4, 2004 Posted December 4, 2004 does anyone think that capital (is it capitol or capital?) punishment is wrong because of the possibility that the court can convict an innocent man? obviously, executing an innocent man is wrong, no matter how you paint it right? i would obviously hate to be the one to get executed for not doing anything but is that alone enough to do away with capital punishment? is there any significance in saying that the few sometimes have to suffer for the good of society? sure, there are many more reasons that one could argue that there shouldnt be capital punishment but what about this one.
sepultallica Posted December 4, 2004 Author Posted December 4, 2004 come on man, you have to lay down some reasons with that. it's no fun otherwise.
atinymonkey Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 It's one of the basic reasons state sanctioned executions do not take place in almost all democratic countrys, and is a very valid point.
SCOOTER93 Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 Well, when we get civilized here in the USA we can think about abolishing the death penality. (I can't spell capital either)
SCOOTER93 Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 I would think that if we are going to execute people, occasionally we will execute an innocent person, given an imperfect system. One way to look at it is to consider the risk, and do we think capital punishment deters murder. No one wants to be excuted for a murder they did not commit, but you don't want to BE a murder victim. Either way, you are just as dead. So, ideally, we should execute enough people so that risk of being an innocent executees will just balance the risk of being an innocent murder victims. I don't think we are anywhere close at this time.
john5746 Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 It would be nice to be able to just take certain people and put a bullet in their head. But, I have to stand against the death penalty, mostly due to costs, etc. I would like to see criminals do something to help defer the costs of keeping them behind bars. No need to make the labor terrible, just make them do some work.
Ophiolite Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 I reject the right of society to execute me for any crime that I may or may not have commited. I recognise that they have the capacity to overide my rejection. If I am expected to adhere to the rules, laws and conventions of this society, then I expect certain things in recompense. Amongst these are not to be executed for a crime, because of the possibility that I may be innocent of said crime. I am not especially concerned that this may remove a deterrent effect, since drug addicts, enraged husbands, jealous lovers and startled burglars (the groups at whom I suspect I would be most at risk from) do not generally carry out a cost-benfit analysis of the consequences of offing me. I would much prefer to take my chances with the aforementioned, than my chances of avoiding accidentally being convicted for a capital crime I did not commit. That's all quite aside from the fact that I consider capital punishment to be unethical, boorish, uncivilised, primitive, ineffectual, demeaning to society, cruel, misdirected, unchristian, counter-productive, simplistic, and reactionary.
Douglas Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 does anyone think that capital (is it capitol or capital?) punishment is wrong because of the possibility that the court can convict an innocent man? obviously' date=' executing an innocent man is wrong, no matter how you paint it right? i would obviously hate to be the one to get executed for not doing anything but is that alone enough to do away with capital punishment? is there any significance in saying that the few sometimes have to suffer for the good of society? sure, there are many more reasons that one could argue that there shouldnt be capital punishment but what about this one.[/quote'] Put me in the pro execution column. Although there's a possibilty of wrongly sending a man to his death, I don't believe there have been any proven wrongful executions, though there have been several suspected. Today, it's takes about 10 years of appeals before executing someone, that's plenty of time to find the person innocent...if he/she is.
SCOOTER93 Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 >>>>>If I am expected to adhere to the rules, laws and conventions of this society, <<<<< When people are executed, it usually is because they did NOT adhere to the rules, laws and conventions of our society.
Ophiolite Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 >>>>>If I am expected to adhere to the rules' date=' laws and conventions of this society, <<<<< When people are executed, it usually is because they did NOT adhere to the rules, laws and conventions of our society.[/quote']Please read the sentence after the one youhave quoted. Taking the quoted sentence out of context renders it as a non-controversial and largely irrelevant statement. usually is not always. That is the issue.
Sayonara Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 Put me in the pro execution column. Although there's a possibilty of wrongly sending a man to his death' date=' I don't believe there have been any proven wrongful executions, though there have been several suspected. Today, it's takes about 10 years of appeals before executing someone, that's plenty of time to find the person innocent...if he/she is.[/quote'] So your reasoning is "I support execution because there's no real reason I shouldn't" ? Why would you be for a barbaric act that has obvious alternatives? Help me out here - I don't get it.
john5746 Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 Take the case of a psychopath who has killed many people. Admits it - tells you where the bodies are and is proud of it. Why keep someone like this alive? Surely they deserve to die more than a lab rat. With the death penalty, you will eventually kill an innocent person. With life in prison, you will eventually have a murderer escape or be released. I don't think the death penalty is a deterrent - especially for the worst cases as mentioned above. To me it is economics - why feed and cloth people like this? But, the death penalty cost as much or more than keeping someone in prision, so no need to have it.
Sayonara Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 "There might be an escape from prison" is an argument for improving the prison system's processes, not for state-sanctioned murder.
Artorius Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 Also Nelson Mandela was incarcerated for 20 odd years,his been out a few decades without re offending so it shows you prison works.
blike Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 does anyone think that capital (is it capitol or capital?) punishment is wrong because of the possibility that the court can convict an innocent man?You can also convict an innocent man of murder and sentence him to a life in prison. The result, from the perspective of that argument, is the same: an innocent person's life is thrown away by society. "An innocent person might die" is an argument for improving the court system, not against capital punishment. But, I have to stand against the death penalty, mostly due to costs, etc. I would like to see criminals do something to help defer the costs of keeping them behind bars.Perhaps we should make criminals to work off the cost of their own execution. I would likely be in favor of that. But I agree, the death penalty should be a wham, bam, thank you ma'am kind of thing in my opinion. In the past, they would just line them up and hang several of them at once. I understand the proper appeals must be allowed to play out, though.
blike Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 Also Nelson Mandela was incarcerated for 20 odd years,his been out a few decades without re offending so it shows you prison works.About one-third of all persons arrested for a violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, assault) are already on probation, parole or pretrial release. More than 90 percent of state prisoners have committed one or more violent crimes or served a previous sentence to incarceration or probation. Three of four inmates are in prison for a current violent crime conviction. Most inmates in prison for a current non-violent crime had previously committed a violent crime. About 91 percent of inmates had a current or prior adult or juvenile conviction for a violent crime. http://www.ncpa.org/~ncpa/hotlines/juvcrm/eocp2.html
Douglas Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 So your reasoning is "I support execution because there's no real reason I shouldn't" Why would you be for a barbaric act that has obvious alternatives? Help me out here - I don't get it. Well, Blike gave a good reason....... "An innocent person might die" is an argument for improving the court system, not against capital punishment." I suspect (but can't prove) that there have been more innocent victims killed by murderers released from prison, than there have been innocent men convicted of murder. I support execution because it's a deterrent to the person who has been executed. REMEMBER WILLIE HORTON.
Tesseract Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 It easy to kill somone if they've killed another innocent person, why should they deserve anything better than what they did? Why should I pay money to keep them alive when they clearly dont respect life at all? Why should I keep them in jail when they can escape and kill again?Why not kill evryone in jail, they arent helping the society they produce nothing only hinder and leech of the coommon tax payer. Why are the normal inmates different from the ones on death row? Both dont respect rights, morals, or laws. Heaven forbid we try to help somone that could be a productive member of our society, since it clearly needs no help. 1) "its what they deserve", so then what is this revenge? justice? Ironically its against the law to kill someone out of vengence. Justice, an eye for an eye. But wouldnt that just limit yourself to their level? Can you condone killing another person? Why let two people die when one can live? Everyone deserves to live. Being born in a place like this people at the very least get a chance to live. 2)"money" "economics", yes I understand this one helping a known killer to live the rest of his life alone without rights at the lowest level of living under danger of being killed with now other hope of escaping. What do think the govenment is going to do if they didnt put taxes on that. Do you think they would immediatly give it back to the people so they could live good lives and get out of poverty? No, they would give it to the weapons manufaturers and to the army, navy, airforce to kill more poeple and to give more innocent looking young people below the poverty line guns so they could rob a convinience store and feed their family. WHY NOT KILL THEM? criminals! Rotten, filthy criminals destroying out perfect society. 3)They could escape!!! Yes instead of improving our prison system lets solve the problem by killing all the inmates. Wouldnt that be easy, what will hapen if we become like that? Without morals or any respect for the life of other people. When the meat rots cut it off. People are so lazy.
Artorius Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 At the end of the day im in favour of execution.If it so happens a few innocent people are mistakenly killed so be it.To eliminate these murderers from the gene pool can only benefit mankind.
bloodhound Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 hey does anyone remember that movie??i can't remember whats its called basically this guy going to jail and dies to prove that you can convict an innocent...
Tetrahedrite Posted December 5, 2004 Posted December 5, 2004 At the end of the day im in favour of execution.If it so happens a few innocent people are mistakenly killed so be it.To eliminate these murderers from the gene pool can only benefit mankind. So you wouldn't mind if you were the one wrongly convicted? A person who spends life in gaol is not going to contribute to the gene pool anyway!
Sayonara Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 Well' date=' Blike gave a good reason......."An innocent person might die" is an argument for improving the court system, not against capital punishment."[/quote'] No, disarming an argument against something is not the same as giving a reason for supporting it. I suspect (but can't prove) that there have been more innocent victims killed by murderers released from prison, than there have been innocent men convicted of murder. Now that would be an interesting study. REMEMBER WILLIE HORTON. I'm afraid I'd have to know who he is in order to remember him
Douglas Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 REMEMBER WILLIE HORTON? I'm afraid I'd have to know who he is in order to remember him I apologize, there is no reason why you should remember Willie Horton. Briefly, Gov Mike Dukakis released Willie Horton, a convicted killer, on a furlough program. A few days later, Horton raped a woman.....not sure if he killed her. Anyway, Dukakis (a democrat) was running against Gore for the presidency in the '88 Dem primary. Gore mentioned the furlough program in a debate, but didn't push it. The Duke won the primary, then in the finals, it was Dukakis and Bush Sr. This furlough, followed by the rape, was one of the issues that sunk the Duke and his chance for the presidency.
atinymonkey Posted December 6, 2004 Posted December 6, 2004 Put me in the pro execution column. Although there's a possibilty of wrongly sending a man to his death' date=' I don't believe there have been any proven wrongful executions, though there have been several suspected. Today, it's takes about 10 years of appeals before executing someone, that's plenty of time to find the person innocent...if he/she is.[/quote'] There have been hundreds of executions that have subsequently been judged unlawful, and those timescales do not apply in certain US states such a Texas. Your whole statement is just blind defense of murder, a ethical decision that places you in the same bracket as the murderers you are condemning. Well done. At the end of the day im in favour of execution.If it so happens a few innocent people are mistakenly killed so be it.To eliminate these murderers from the gene pool can only benefit mankind. Ethnic cleansing is not acceptable. Not in any society. Ever.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now