Personally, I am a very strong supporter of the death penalty. And in all honesty I think it should include a small amount of crimes other then murder, but we won't get into that right now. Perhaps it is my southern upbringing, but I beleive that if a person goes out and kills another person in cold blood, he/she does not deserve the joys of life anymore. What do you think? And please no religous stand-points.
Religious standpoints are where I see most of your opposition coming from. IMO the death penalty should be applied where the justice system has proven itself incapable of reforming an individual and they are guilty of serious crimes (ie. murder, rape, etc). Alternatively, if they have repeatedly commited said crimes, no chance for reform should be given. However, you want to be VERY sure the person you have is truly guilty. If you were wrong - can't really fix that.
And you are absolutely right. We need to be very sure whether or not they commited said act, which is also the basis for American justice "beyond a reasonable doubt" which means at LEAST 99.9% sure that this person committed the crime. Which is how most criminals get away with their crime. This is where I have to admit that Japanese justice comes in handy. You are guilty until you can prove by 51% that you are innocent, which I think is kind of harsh, but it works. Look at the amount of violent crime in Japan (per capita) compared to just New York or L.A.
How long does to it take before you can say someone can't be rehabilitated? I say life (not 20 years but until they die) imprisonment, serving the world's community for the rest of their days. No one has any right to say who lve or dies, regardless of religous beliefs.
Alright lets try this, lets say we are invaded by a country, doesn't matter who. And a soldier kills off your entire family because they stood in the way of his mission. Now you in turn take up a weapon and kill him. Anyone who cared for the life of their family would do the same. Lets keep in mind that this was a soldier sent with specific orders to do this specific task, he may have been revolted by it, but he was willing to kill your entire family in defense of his country. So lets just replace him with a serial killer. Now this guy has no higher purpose. He has no orders from his government to execute anyone, he merely kills all your loved ones because the urge suddenly struck him to do so. Now, you don't have a gun this time to take up against him. But you can kill him just the same with the push of a button. Its either that or he gets his free cable TV, exercise rooms, and three meals a day, which some hard working, people who have never hurt anyone don't even get. Remember this is YOUR family, not something on CNN, what do you do?
1) Regardless of how you do it, its still a conscious decision to kill someone, which (as I said) no one has the right to decide. 2) Who said anyhting about cable etc?? I didn't say I would keep things the way they are! I'm talking about stripping the comforts of life because they are not to be rehabilitated. ou either get a job to do or solitary confinement till the end of your days. Prisoners choice.
Personally, I think life behind bars is a more severe punishment then death. I know I would prefer the get the "chair" rather then be locked up worthlessly for the rest of my life. I would see death as a way out.... not a punishment. If thats not good enough then there could always be a life of torture.
Worthlessly locked up in the rest of your life??? They killed someone, where's the reason that they won''t strangle someone in jail, psychopaths are psychopaths, no way thet can be rehabilitated IMO. The people whothey killed now don't exist, don't have a life to live unlike the prisoner who eats hot food everyday, works in the gym, feel alive everyday...... Still the murderer has to decide the death of his victims and get away with bieng in prison? |Cain|
It's this aspect which I think is at the crux of it. Powerful people made a societal system and its the duty of the society to educate and reform. If the criminal has failed to reform, the guilt lies with the education system of society. This is all very academic because the death penalty is used indisciminately. The whole thing disgusts me: the state opting to deliberately kill people knowing there's a percentage error rate. I sympathise with psychopaths, killers, rapists, child-abusers etc because society as a whole has no real method of fixing these messed-up people. People are always discussing how long it takes to repay for a crime. What if a murderer regrets the killing and becomes a changed man in one month, one day or one hour? The murderer is no longer in his mind or heart: what are you doing to him by locking him up or killing him? Revenge is weakness and society should be strong, could be strong, except that weakness leads to re-election. I would become his best friend, be responsible for his life and his personal rescue. This would be a big job, perhaps beyond me but I think one should not shy away from the task because its hard. Nobody else would put the effort in because they don't have the investment that I do. I hope there will come a time when all punishment will be considered gratuitous violence and the symptom of a dangerous ignorance to the value of life. Rgds, David
Okey then Cain lets make it Harunbi style. You kill my mother, I kill your mother. 1 Bad + 1 Bad = 1 Good?? Remember, i'm not saying the current system works imprisonment or the death penatly. What happens when you kill someone that turns out to be innocent?? Does that mean whoever convicted them (whoever decided the death penatly) should die also?? They made the decision to kill them so are they not a murderer now. The death penalty is a cop out because we don't know how to deal with these types of people in our society. Whot if we find out there's life after death and these loonies have been giving quicker access to a utopia on the "other side"??? Man, we are gonna have egg on our faces then. Keep em alive and punish them i say.
you joking right? first point, your sympathy with killers, rapists and CHILD ABUSERS! society has got one definate method for fixing the killers, the electric chair or the hangmans noose. rapists and child abusers should, on their first offence, be castrated. the only reason castration dosen't take place already is some bull sh*t concern about their human rights. IMO you forfeit your rights as soon as you break the law, especially in the case of rape and murder. your second point. you'd be the best friend of some physco that just killed your whole family? would you really? do you even have a family? if anyone even touched, let alone killed anyone in my family, they'd better hope the police find them before i do, thats all i'm gona say......
The judicial system is inherently flawed, people are wrongly convicted, people who are guilty are acquitted. How can you possibly allow a flawed system the power to end someones life. For serious crimes, murder etc, take their life yes. By putting them in a prison that doesnt allow them to have a tv and a playstation in every cell, where they are made to work for the benefit of the community they affected. Make life mean life, not 10 years with good behaviour, they should die incarcerated, however long that takes. Make prison live up to its name, not be some second rate holiday camp, where prisoners can have home leave and other such ridiculous benefits. Its not the duty of the system to rehabilitate they chose to break the rules, the consequences lie with them. As for people who are psycholgically damaged, ie psychopaths etc, they are obviously unable in any way to operate under the rules of society so their privaledge of doing so should be removed.
*cough* back again to the point of two wrongs. So because someone breaks the law we can mutilate them and torture them with a clear conscience? Doesn't revenge killing make us just as bad? Has the death penalty actually worked consistently as a deterrnt to the crimes it's punishable with?? Surely someone has the facts and figures.
Quote Patrick - "The judicial system is inherently flawed, people are wrongly convicted, people who are guilty are acquitted. How can you possibly allow a flawed system the power to end someones life." I agree 100% with this statement. We are not perfect, neither are our systems so we dont have the right to kill anyone!! nimrook - why dont you the religious stand point???
TOSH so if castration for rapists and especially child abusers is not the answer, what is? what would you do with paedophiles? give 'em a ridiculously short prison sentance then give them a job with children when they come out as has happen an alarming amount of times in the past. would you secretly relocate them to a brand new community that has no knowlege of their perversion and allow them the full rights of decent law abiding people? which is a current policy of HM government. i have a special hatred for paedophiles, probably due to the fact that i have 5 young nieces nad the very idea....well anyway, paedophiles with no testicles will not re-offend! fact. the infringement of a criminals human rights is surely justified by this simple fact. and by the way, abusing children and rape is not merely 'breaking the law' as you put it. someone who commits eiother of these crimes is not fit to be considered for human rights. they are scum.
yes, i agree this would be preferable to the death penalty in the majority of cases. the trouble with putting people behind bars for life (meaning thier natural life not 25years) is that however horrible the crimes are, people forget and become sympathetic with the criminal. myra hindly for example, people where actually campaigning for her release towards the end of her life. besides all this moral business about is it right to take an eye for an eye. why should the tax payer have to pay for the scum of the earth to live in comfort and in good health. does anyone know how much a single prisoner costs the tax payer per annum? its more than £10k but i don't know the exact figure. thats fine i suppose if the criminal is going to rehabilitate, come out of prison and then contribute back to society. but if they're going to remain in prison for ever, why not just kill them at the start of the sentance, saves money, saves time and is a bigger dettterent to criminals.
JUDOJEDI KNOCK, KNOCK HELLO?? Thanks for reading my posts carefully and fully before posting. I'll be sure to offer you the same complement in the future
*opens door* hello tosh so was your last post ironic or moronic? or maybe i'm being moronic but how does point 2 apply to my post about castration of rapist and paedophiles? you'd just lock them up would you with no comforts and the choice of solitary confinmnet. what about when they get out. i know point 2 says 'till the end of thier days' but no judicial system would give 'life' to a paedo. so when they get out, they still have everything they need to re-offend. and in this european 'utopia' that we live in, no-ones ideas for improving the justice system by toughening prisons/sentances or executing/flogging/castrating criminals will ever be allowed because we live in a society that looks after the offender and their needs, the victim can make-do with a few grand compansaton.
<-------------------- supporter of the death penalty in cases of pointless and cruel homicide, child abuse, incest and most certainly rape.
to quote a death row inmate before he was executed, "You do know that the death penatly is murder." I just see it as completely pointless. Why take the chemical, bullets, electricity to kill someone when nature takes them away for you, gives them time to stew in their terrible deeds and may even prove more painful than an execution.
