Capital punishment

[Freedan]

It was sure to come up sooner or later. Personally, I'm a bit surprised it wasn't sooner.

So, capital punishment. Is there a place for it?

A few questions to consider:

If one person kills another (intentionally, that is... for all intents and purposes, 'murder' in this topic will mean 'intentional murder'... that is, first degree), is it right to kill that individual? Does that also constitute 'intentional murder'?

Is life imprisonment a better option? It avoids the social stigma, but the taxpayers are paying to support a murderer for 50 years (or however long they live).

Amnesty International calls capital punishment 'the ultimate violation of human rights'. Is a murderer entitled to those rights, or do they forfeit them when they commit the crime?

Is the risk of wrongfully executing someone too great? It's happened before (rarely). Do you risk potentially killing an innocent person, or potentially let 1,000 guilty live?

I'll put up my own thoughts a little later when I have some more time.

[psychokind]

I'm against capital punishment, because you kill someone and think "ok, doesn't matter anymore, I'm sentenced to death now, let's kill some more!".

but I'm for torture, sth like eye for an eye. you raped a women? you get raped to death. and the families of the victims should be asked if they want to torture.

[thefencemaster]

I for one am against the concept. The only time that someone could argue that the death penalty should be enacted would be in the case of a murder and/or murders. Even then it seems stupid to me. If a life has already been taken away why is it that we should take away another. I just think of it as two wrongs don't make a right sort of an idea.

A more complicated question that I think would be fun to bring into this topic. For those of us who are against the death penalty, are there some circumstances that the death penalty should be used? Are there acts so "evil" that we should end the life of someone who were to commit such an act. Or should we see to it that someone who were to commit such an act suffers for the rest of their life. An easy example for me to think of would be someone like Jeffrey Dahmer (did I spell that right?).

Fun stuff to think about. Enjoy

[Mantaray]

I'd say only put someone to death if their crime is very large scale or if they cross miles over the line. Like cruising the neighborhood and randomly throwing grenades in all directions. But that might just be good enough for an asylum. I dunno, too tired to think up anything worthy of death penalties. I'll edit this later.

[Jason Tandro]

psychokind wrote:

but I'm for torture, sth like eye for an eye. you raped a women? you get raped to death. and the families of the victims should be asked if they want to torture.

Wait a minute? You think that humanely killing a life that is better off not existing is WORSE than barbarically destroying a human life? I don't follow the logic.

Frankly I think BOTH are fine. All this "we have to be civilized" stuff is nonsense. I think the punishment should fit the crime.

I've actually got a codification similar to Hammurabi's Code which I think we should enact in our law.

Code:

If you murder somebody in cold blood, then your life is forfeit.  If you rape somebody, then your right to procreate is forfeit. If you unintentionally kill somebody (if it is a complete accident, like a car accident during inclement weather) then you should not be prosecuted at all. If you unintentionally kill somebody while under the influence of alchohol or drugs, you should be put away for a long time (no less than 25 years).

Frankly I don't believe that jails are meant to be "rehabilitative". For petty crime or kids, sure. They still have a chance to be saved and grow up to be decent members of society. But if you've gotten to the point where you are going to rape or kill somebody, then you're too far gone.

Sure, people can change, but the purpose of the Death Penalty is to remove people who are dangerous to the society as a whole. Also I think sick mother-fuckers like the BTK Killer should be tortured to death. I think once they find out we start doing that, criminals will be a lot less likely to get stupid.

And don't sell me the "crazy" argument. Of course these people are crazy. They still need to be removed from society.

Sorry if this sounds barbaric, but it's how I feel.

[Freedan]

Ok, now for my own thoughts:

Those who murder in cold blood are not entitled to their rights. When they stabbed, or shot, or strangled, or whatever, they forfeited their right as a protected member of society.

Frankly, it disgusts me that any of my tax dollars pay to keep these people supported in prison. They get a college education, maybe write a book, plenty of publicity, and pretty much become celebrities on the dollar of law-abiding citizens.

What disgusts me even more is when it's proven that these people killed, and they get out a few years later. Not only that, but they're protected... no one knows where they go, so they could move in to any quiet neighbourhood they wish, where they'll likely reoffend.

In Canada, there was a very publicized multiple-rape/murder case, with two people involved... Paul Bernardo, and Karla Homolka. They killed at least 3 young women, and probably assaulted/raped several more. And videotaped it. Bernardo is in for life (living off our tax dollars), while Homolka got out after only 12 years for selling him out and testifying. 12 years for 3 confirmed rape/murders. And when she got out, they quietly allowed her to live where she wanted, with no public knowledge (they're afraid vigilantes will kill her). It sickens me that they always seem to put the criminal's rights ahead of the victim's.

These two people can not be rehabilitated. They're violent, murdering rapists. Why should they be allowed to live when they can casually disregard life themselves?

So yes, in cases of cold-blooded murder, I'll say yes to capital punishment. But only in cases where it's proven beyond doubt that they're guilty (now with DNA evidence, wrongful convictions are far less likely).

[Jason Tandro]

Freedan, the Dark Knight wrote:

And when she got out, they quietly allowed her to live where she wanted, with no public knowledge (they're afraid vigilantes will kill her). It sickens me that they always seem to put the criminal's rights ahead of the victim's. These two people can not be rehabilitated. They're violent, murdering rapists. Why should they be allowed to live when they can casually disregard life themselves?

True, which is why I think the list of sex offenders is a great idea. However I don't think things like "visiting a hooker" and "having sex in public" should put you on that list.

[EverPhoenix]

my views have been mentioned already, but ill say them anyway.

i agree with capital punishment, but under certain circumstances. if someone intentionally committed a bad enough crime (rape, murder) then their fate should be decided by the family of the victim, or the victim themselves. if that fails, then i think by violating someone else's rights, they forfeit their own. ie think of some creative way to punish them. bring on the catapults

plus if they were imprisoned, it wouldnt really help them at all. its just a waste of taxpayer money which could be otherwise spent on better education, which would contribute to producing less of those bastards in the first place.

for unintentional crimes, i dont believe capital punishment is right, but if its under the influence of anything, then the person should have to take remedial measures. like see a therapist, AA meets, etc.

the only major issue i see in my argument is the conviction of an innocent person. but with the wonders of technology, specifically dna testing, that should be easier. but it shouldnt be publicised that its dna testing thats being used, or precautions may be taken by the offenders.

[tay120n64]

I feel that capital punishment is a good thing.

I honestly don't feel comfortable with the concept of paying for a person to live if they have nothing positive to offer society.

I think that capital punishment should be used only in the worst of scenarios, but I do think it should be used.

However, I am against torture. The elimination of permanently dangerous individuals, though arguably morally wrong, is a reasonable and humane sentence. Torture is barbaric, any way you slice it. A fully developed society has no need for something this brash.

[inferiare]

See, I always hope for the people that did something REALLY terrible that didn't get the death penalty will just get himself killed in prison so that the taxpayers (ie myself and anyone else who holds a job) don't have to pay for them any further. Of course, it's the child killers or child rapists that this happens to the most (most of the time, the people behind bars have kids of their own and they really, really don't like people who do terrible things to children.)

However, I'm with Freedan and Jason on this one: if they did something accidental? No, they shouldn't. If they had every intent on slaughtering innocent people just for the thrill of it, or they have killed a few people (Bernando and Homolka come to mind; and I've read what they did. It was pretty sickening to read. I hope that bitch rots) to get their rocks off (essentially)? Zap them. Why should those that have taken innocent lives in brutal, horrible ways that constitute as torture live? They shouldn't. If they're going to take away human lives that easily, they should have theirs taken too.

[Jason Tandro]

You've inspired me, Raini. This is for you.

[inferiare]

Jason Tandro wrote:

You've inspired me, Raini. This is for you.

lmfao that's amazing. BUT STAY ON TOPIC DAMN IT.

[Jason Tandro]

rainichan wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: You've inspired me, Raini. This is for you. lmfao that's amazing. BUT STAY ON TOPIC DAMN IT.

That is on topic. You are clearly about to enact the death penalty on somebody who deserves it.

[psychokind]

Jason Tandro wrote:

psychokind wrote: but I'm for torture, sth like eye for an eye. you raped a women? you get raped to death. and the families of the victims should be asked if they want to torture. Wait a minute? You think that humanely killing a life that is better off not existing is WORSE than barbarically destroying a human life? I don't follow the logic.

well, yes. where is the punishment in killing somebody off hunamely? and educational measure?

[Jason Tandro]

The point being that all we are doing is removing a life that is better off not existing. Punishment is designed to teach a lesson, but some people can't be taught.