Capital Punishment: yay or nay?

[MA-Caver]

It deters a person from killing a second, third....time.

Also in agreement.
How many times does someone need to kill before they're deemed "un-rehabilitable" or un-redeemable? Does a criminal have to kill one of your own to have you cry out for their blood? What about those who have killed once and were sent to prison only to be released from parole 10 years later and went out and killed again?
Oh there's a flaw in the system alright... it's letting these animals live. Locking them away for life without parole is basically saying they got away with it. They get 3 hots and a cot courtesy of our tax dollars for the rest of their lives.

Also, honestly, it really ticks me off when they talk about cruel and unusual in light of the methodology of our capital punishments. How is it any MORE cruel and unusual to beat a child to death with a hammer? Letting a victim starve to death in a dark dank basement? Bludgeon someone repeatedly with a lead pipe? Stabbing them umpteen number of times? On and on... how is it any more cruel than say the electric chair which sends a voltage so powerful that it effectively knocks out the brain waves and the recipient doesn't feel anything? Given sedatives to be put into a deep sleep before the deadly chemicals are injected?
The gas chamber was probably cruel, gasping and choking for fresh air, hanging was probably cruel if the knot at the base of the neck didn't snap it right away, firing squad if the bullets didn't penetrate and destroy the heart stopping it and the guy bleeds out (which was rare anyway)...
The ones against it are the ones who imagine without any base reference to actually experiencing it are the ones crying out "cruel and unusual".
Besides why should'nt those animals suffer a little bit before dying? Their victims probably did... isn't that justice??

 

[Touch Of Death]

What say you?

Talking about Bob Barr we got sidetracked on the death penalty.

I myself favor the liberal and gratuitous use of the death penalty. I think we need to make more crimes capital crimes. And limit appeals to 12 months, maximum.

What do you think?

No death penalty... not now not ever! Thank you.
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

It deterrs at least one killer from killing again, but I dont care if its a deterrent. Its punishment. Im all for it as long as it falls within some established guidelines. 20 eyewitnesses, a confession and physical evidence? Yes..absolutely. A circumstantial case based on forensics only and no body? Uhhh..no.

Russia had it right. Rather than wasting bullets, you sent them to Siberia. The criminals and itellectuals were gone, as needed. Killing them is just a show.
Sean

 

[Touch Of Death]

I'm for capital punishment on certain types of offenses.
Serial murders with absolute proof that the man they have is indeed the killer (i.e. Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahlmer, J.W. Gacy, etc.). They should NOT sit on death row for more than 12 months, period.
Even on crimes of passion, while it depends. Murdering a child, absolutely. There is absolutely NO excuse or reason for ANYONE intentionally taking the life of a child. They should not survive the child either way.
Basically any heinous crime against children (molestation, porn, etc.) should be punishable by death. These guys DO NOT reform!

Jealous lover murders... that depends, hot blooded pissed off type of killings... well, they should get life. Cold-blooded calculated murders... death.

Gang killings... death penalty no appeal. These people are far too violent to remain in society. Same with racial killings because they're fueled by hatred and done without remorse.

Others... they depend.

Problem with I think of capital punishment is that people have become so adverse to the idea of killing that they tend to neglect the victims of such horrendous crimes.

So, we can be like gods deciding who lives and dies. Isn't that what the criminals were doing?
Sean

 

[MA-Caver]

So, we can be like gods deciding who lives and dies. Isn't that what the criminals were doing?
Sean

NO. The criminals do it for their own selfish needs and wants and desires and they didn't give a rats *** for the victims or their families. What we are doing is meting out justice for what OUR society deems as a crime. The punishment should fit the crime... if it's theft then they are incarcerated and kept in prison, if it's murder for the sake of murder then they should meet the same end. Without justice there is even more crime.
It's not about being GODS and deciding the fate of others, it's punishment... you let your kids get away with stuff? Breaking your rules? Same principal.
Consequences of breaking society rules must be severe enough so that it will make those think twice before breaking them. Putting them in a cage with other animals of like minds won't stop them from plotting and planning their next caper. Given the chance there are prisoners who will try to escape and kill anyone who gets in their way. What if that someone is someone you care about?
A majority of those who are behind bars today just don't care. Many don't want rehabilitation... crime pays a hellva lot better... when they get away with it. There are those too... who happen to LIKE killing.
Again the focus dwindles off the victims and their families. What about them? Who replaces their loss? Do they get ANY type of compensation? Life insurance? Like wow, that makes folks feel better doesn't it?

 

[zDom]

I'm for a secret society of omniscient vigilanties who hunt down and punish wrongdoers in ways that make them suffer pain and loss equivalent to that inflicted on their victims.

I'd already have it up and running except I haven't worked out the omniscience part yet, so don't send me any resumes yet.

 

[cdunn]

I cannot support the death penalty.

I do not believe in hell. Therefore, for any crime which is horrible enough to warrant the death penalty, I consider that death to be far too merciful to be an appropriate punishment for the crime.

 

[Flying Crane]

an intersting point: is punishment & revenge the same thing?

No, it's not.

Society needs to decide what they want it to be. It cannot be both.

 

[Archangel M]

I dont punish my kids out of "revenge". Its an issue of paying for violating the rules. The more serious the violation the more serious the punishment.

 

[celtic_crippler]

So, we can be like gods deciding who lives and dies. Isn't that what the criminals were doing?
Sean

Intersting statement from someone whose handle is "Touch of Death." LOL


...but no...it isn't.

Motivations and reasons for taking life determine the definition.

Martial artists, of all people, should realize that. I'm a peaceful man, I don't look for trouble....but if trouble comes looking for me...I'm ready to do what I have to in order to be the one that gets home to their family at the end of the day.

Is killing in self defense murder? No it's not (though some states may put you away for manslaughter....sigh...glad I live in GA.)

Killing for the sake of killing...that's murder and ethically wrong...regardless of what culture you come from.

 

[MJS]

It deters a person from killing a second, third....time.

Perhaps only to those that are really interested in a) admitting that they have a problem and b) seriously want to turn their life around. There are people out there that could give a crap less if they die, because they themselves, have no regard for human life.

When I worked in corrections, I'd talk to some of these guys. I recall one who was looking at life for murder. Never had any issues with this guy, yet he flat out told me that he wouldn't think twice about taking a swing at me. Whats the worst that was going to happen to him? Loss of some privledge for a short time? Big deal. Didn't matter to him, because he was probably going to die in jail anyway. Sure does make you take a step back for a moment and think about those words.

 

[Ybot]

I really have to agree with Touch Of Death on this one. It's not that I'm going to lose sleep over the death of a person who has done society wrong. The issue is that killing the person does nothing to heal society. I personally believe that it does the opposite.

Punishing a child, and killing a person for a wrong action are very different things. Punishing a child SHOULD be about teaching them a lesson, so they can profit from the experience and do better in the future. Killing a person teaches them no lesson, and they have no chance to profit from the experience and do better in the future. There for I look at the death penalty as nothing more than a form of Revenge.

 

[Sukerkin]

It can be revenge true but it can also be about society protecting itself against harmful elements.

I won't go into the complexitities of whether society itself created the flaws in the human shaped creatures that commit such crimes as serial murder but I do firmly believe that the gene pool is better off without them.

 

[Ray]

Perhaps only to those that are really interested in a) admitting that they have a problem and b) seriously want to turn their life around. There are people out there that could give a crap less if they die, because they themselves, have no regard for human life.

You're probably right, I think I'll start a chapter of Murderers Anonymous for those poor killers who really want to turn their lives around. I mean if OJ can do it, then there's hope for everyone.

 

[MA-Caver]

There for I look at the death penalty as nothing more than a form of Revenge.

And I see it as Justice... :idunno: can't always agree on everything but disagreeing civilly is always a good thing.
:asian:

Revenge is doing unto others as they did to you without due process. Lynch mobs are probably the closest thing to it. Dragging a guy out of a jail cell or running him down before the law gets to them and hanging them in a tree or beating them to death or whatever... that's revenge.
Hunting the guy down, arresting them, examining the evidence, giving them a fair trial where they can argue their innocence and have their burden of proof presented to a jury while the burden of proof against is likewise given, then weighed by a jury of their peers and then declared guilty (or innocent) and sentence is according to what society says it is (death)... or they're released/acquitted based on the evidence and decision of the jury... that is justice.

 

[Archangel M]

Capital sentences, when carried out, save innocent lives by permanently incapacitating
murderers. Some persons who commit capital homicide will other other innocent people if given the opportunity to do so. The death penalty is the most effective means of preventing such killers from repeating their crimes. The next most serious penalty, life imprisonment without possibility of parole, prevents murderers from committing some crimes but does not prevent them from murdering in prison.

 

[KenpoTex]

Mark me down as very much in favor. There are some people (murderers, child molesters, rapists, etc.) who just don't need to be wasting oxygen and we (the taxpayers) shouldn't have to support them...

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't support the death penalty. I think that giving the state the legal power to take someone's life is a mistake. I'm sure we could find a lot of people out there that need killin'. I'm also sure that there are alot of other people who have lots of power that would expand that list beyond the bounds that you would accept.

Giving the state the power over life or death is a bad idea.

 

[Sukerkin]

Those last two posts taken together show why this issue can be such a difficult one to resolve for people as individuals and collectively.

I actually agree with both statements. The first is supported by my moral sense; the second by my reason.

In the end, I'd still say I was on the "Aye" side of the fence but it is not an easy choice to make.

 

[MJS]

I really have to agree with Touch Of Death on this one. It's not that I'm going to lose sleep over the death of a person who has done society wrong. The issue is that killing the person does nothing to heal society. I personally believe that it does the opposite.

IMHO, this is another case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Will killing someone bring back the person that they killed? No. Of course, on the flip side, keeping the person alive, the family of the victim will probably have to re-live the experience every time the accused party goes thru another appeal process. Additionally, you also have the people who complain about prisons being over crowded.

So, looks like we have the following options:

1) Kill the offending party.

2) Don't kill him.

3) Keep him in prison for life.

4) Build more prisons to hold the never ending flow of people who find a life of crime more appealing than being good.

5) Release people who supposedly have changed their ways, and hope that they are sincere and don't run out and pick up where they left off.