The Death Penalty

[Kezil]

Instead of punishing with death, how about preventative measures? (Along with a nice period of time in jail or prison) Example:

Rape: scissors + ... = eunuch

This would likely deter many rapists, and would prevent others from ever doing it again. Very effective.

Not all crimes will be dealt with this severe of a penalty, of course. A petty thief will not need his hands chopped off, that's a bit extreme. For crimes that are more severe or more socially unacceptable, punishments like this could be very effective without making death the first option.

On another matter, which is actually crueler: letting a person rot in prison their whole life or killing them? If they're really bad, they may be locked up in their own private cell, not much larger than a bathroom, no windows, measly amounts of poor quality food, nothing to do but to sit there with only themselves for company, waiting for the day they will die, either naturally or otherwise. There's not much of a difference, except that one way they take longer to die, so which is really more humane?

[rcgreen]

The Government has always been a separate entity
from the people and continues to be so, in spite
of the pleadings of idealists.
The best you can have is a government that has
to give account of itself on election day.

[VictorKaum]

Originally posted by Ramzi

The system may not be perfect, and there are times when it'll mess up, which is inexcusible. Granted, but this is the best we've got. We all know -- but don't like admitting -- that we'd be better off if we killed one innocent than if we left him alive and let a thousand criminals go free.

I disagree, we are not better off if we killed one innocent. Your argumentation is known as utlitarianism: make a calculation of costs and profits...

Well, if you recalculate things on long term you have a different output. This is in litterature known as the Sheriff problem:

Something terrible happend in a town
The Sheriff has arrested somu suspect.

The people want to hang the suspect while the Sheriff wants to wait for the judge.
Well in the riots that are going to happen, the Sheriff and his deputies have to defend themself to protect the prisoners and they have to kill 10 people by doing that.

You could argue now that the Sheriff has to surrender and let the people kill the suspect...to save 10 innocent. But you can also say that when the Sheriff let the people hang the suspect on the long run all order will be lost, especially when turns out that the suspect was innocent. In the riots that follow 100 people will be killed cause all respect for Sheriff and governement is lost.

_________________

btw: this is just my opinion, I want in no means to disrespect people or something.

For all the people that already gave me negative antipoints for my opinion in this thread, I will not change my viewpoint for that. I do not get why you want to win this discussion by doing that as cowards?

The only one that deeply influenced me was MsMittens... I was thinking not to post again, but like she said herself, she does not want us to not post again cause of her post.

I'd rather not argue against emotions as it's a battle you can't win. Once again I'm truly sorry.....

I have the same feeling,

I can understand all of you that argue pro death penalty, the evil is a complex issue... there are no solid solutions for this one. Every one has her / his own opinion. I do respect all those opinions, I'am only discussing a topic... and recieving negative points for it
The story of MsMittens got me thinking and indeed if you have a 100% proof, fair, just system (without a jury) the whole case differ... but you don't have a 100% proof, fair, just system.

[{P²P}Apocalypse]

Like I said in agreement with VictorKaum. I have worked in the TN Dept. of Corrections. I did numerous transports to and from court. So I got to see the inner workings. The justice system is far from perfect. Also, we are only human. We all make mistakes. I for one would not like to have the burdon of knowing I had judged someone guilty. Then they are put to death. Later to be found innocent. My main point though. I have observed wealthy well to do persons come to court for killing there spouse in cold blood. But the high priced lawyers get them off with 20 years. Then I saw an older man that shot and killed his 15 year old daughters rapist to death. He got the death penalty (later commuted to life) because he had a public defender that rushed him through "the system". Now is this justice served. Ask yourself? Anyone.

PS: A side note. I love this kind of open air discussion. It releaves stress.

[ANTI-HACKERS]

I would have to say yes to the death penalty because i believe in an eye for an eye. Like think of all the kids that got killed by one of those sick bastards. Or in the Oklahoma bombing and all those poor kids died for what nothing. So i say ya to death penalty. Sick bastard did't even have any remorse for killing those kids he just wanted to be on tv.




ANTI-HACKERS

[Ramzi]

Originally posted by VictorKaum
I disagree, we are not better off if we killed one innocent. Your argumentation is known as utlitarianism: make a calculation of costs and profits...

Well, if you recalculate things on long term you have a different output. This is in litterature known as the Sheriff problem:

Something terrible happend in a town
The Sheriff has arrested somu suspect.

The people want to hang the suspect while the Sheriff wants to wait for the judge.
Well in the riots that are going to happen, the Sheriff and his deputies have to defend themself to protect the prisoners and they have to kill 10 people by doing that.

You could argue now that the Sheriff has to surrender and let the people kill the suspect...to save 10 innocent. But you can also say that when the Sheriff let the people hang the suspect on the long run all order will be lost, especially when turns out that the suspect was innocent. In the riots that follow 100 people will be killed cause all respect for Sheriff and governement is lost.

I'm no stranger to the concept of Utilitarianism. People have their opinions and if enough people agree, they become laws. John Stuart Mill, the English philosopher, asserted that Utilitarianism--the greatest good for the greatest number of people--should be our Modus Operandi (mode of operating) in a society. His argument is compelling--there will always be competing interests in a society, especially one as large and diverse as ours; however, if our legislators keep Utilitarianism in mind, they should do all right. The Sherif Problem you proposed to me I found quite interesting; however, I'm still a supporter of Utilitarianism. As I said in an earlier post in this thread, sometimes what's right and what's best are not the same thing. To expand upon that, sometimes there is no definite answer for what's right or for what's best. I can think of two good examples of this. 1) A son and a daughter are brought in front of their mother and she needs to decide which one is to be killed. If she cannot decide, they both will be. What is the right thing to do? No answer, my friend, no answer. This second one I came up with while trying to process the attacks in my head. 2) It's the 11th of September, and a plane is flying kind of low and you're living in the DC area. You heard about what had happened earlier in the day. You can shoot the plane down, and definitely kill everyone inside, or you can leave it alone and it could potentially fly into a building and kill many more people. What do you do?

I know my examples are a little out-there, but please take them for what they're worth and not add any more elements to the situations. You'll come to the realization that whatever you'll do, you'll do in best interests. And different people will do different things. Who's to say what's right and wrong? All that matters is that the intentions behind the acts were those of good. I believe that this is clearly evident in this own thread. Everybody understands the reasoning of both sides. We understand why someone may be for or against Capital Punishment, and we understand that other people formed their opinions with intentions based upon good. I think we're evolved enough to accept other's opinions and not hate them for them. *looks in the direction of those assigning anti-points*

[I am a cracker]

I am totally against the death penalty no need for it!

[zepherin]

You can't keep a killer from killing.
Revenge is a powerfull motivator.
Which is why the death pentalty still exists.

[the_g_nee]

Personally, I am all for the death penalty.
These days forensic science is at the stage that the possibilities
of convicting someone who is not guilty are next to nothing,
in cases like Dahlmer or Nelson (here in the UK) there was so much
evidence against them, that there was absolutely no doubt as to their guilt.

Many have said that the courts ordering the death of an individual
is morally wrong and reduces the judicial system down to the level of the criminal,
which is a fair point, but I can see no benefit from keeping mass murderers,
persistent rapists or child molesters alive. The duty of a court in any land is
to make that country a nicer and better place to live, anyone who says society
would be a better place for keeping these type of people alive should perhaps try
to see things from the relative of the dead persons perspective.

In the UK we do not have the death penalty, but if we did and I was so unfortunate
as to have a family member or friend killed by a mass murderer - or similar (heaven forbid),
then I would have absolutely no qualms in being at that persons death. Taking these
peoples lives wont bring back the lost ones, I doubt it would even help the grieving
process, but it will ensure that criminals dont get to spend the rest of their lives in nice
warm cells watching TV at the expense of the tax payer all the while knowing that
their lives will be provided for forever. They lost their rights to be treated as human
beings when they decided to act like animals.