Death Sentences etc.
- Thread starter Hubster
- Start date
True... It's akin to tossing plastic bags into landfill and waiting for the 20 to 1000 years to pass for decomposition.
I feel a little partial about it though... should a death sentence perhaps depend on certain characteristics of the crime? For example, a rapist has inflicted permanent psychological damage to the victim, should he be allowed to live at all by denying the women her her basic human right?
On the other hand, should a killer of children, who has obviously wiped out their victims, should they be allowed to keep fantasising about committing their crime again? Would it not be justified for the families to see the killer meet an appropriate end?
Great point there... and almost an issue by itself - human rights for people on death row ... is it better to allow them a painless death? Or should they be tortured? Should it depend on the crime? On the severity of pain incurred upon the victim, their families? Should perhaps a criminal have inlficted upon them their very own crime?
I guess really, it's part of a larger issue - what is an appropriate punishment for someone who breaks the law on this kind of scale? How do we really equate the balance of crime and punishment? Does it need to be re-evaluated?
Matt
Active Member
How do we define horrendous crimes, though? What is a suitable crime for this kind of punishment? Or perhaps... is there a suitable crime for this kind of punishment...
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
The death sentence is utterly pointless. It accomplishes nothing whatsoever that can be done in a more civilized manner.
To begin, the prison system is designed primarily to keep harmful people away from people who have not been shown to be harmful. The purpose of the prison system is not to punish, let alone kill, its inmates.
Life sentences are essentially as effective as death sentences. And it has the additional advantage of being humane. One person killing another person does not give a third person the right to kill the first person, so essentially the third person is committing a second crime, killing a largely harmless individual. Of course, life sentences are also cheaper than death sentences, but this is not a priority for me, because I am not Jewish.
To begin, the prison system is designed primarily to keep harmful people away from people who have not been shown to be harmful. The purpose of the prison system is not to punish, let alone kill, its inmates.
Life sentences are essentially as effective as death sentences. And it has the additional advantage of being humane. One person killing another person does not give a third person the right to kill the first person, so essentially the third person is committing a second crime, killing a largely harmless individual. Of course, life sentences are also cheaper than death sentences, but this is not a priority for me, because I am not Jewish.
Matt
Active Member
Multiple killings, etc - I do believe that someone who kills a bunch of people deserves to die.
@Hub
@Hub
cookiecutter
Proceed to Ultraslamming
I was giving you a reason why the death penalty is bad.
So we kill someone because we think it's bad to kill someone? Doesn't make much sense.
Also the death penalty does not act as a deterrent, so there is no benefit safety wise.
But some of these crimes are horrid, absolutely terrible. Do these criminals deserve humane treatment after their deeds? Why? But then by the same token, were the west to take on a no-tolerance approach, it would compromise our moral system perhaps would you agree?
(Thinking on this one) ... Were the prison system not designed to punish, sentences would not vary according to various crimes, and in (some) cases perhaps the legal system would not go to such detail to obtain additional details for trials perhaps...
What if for example, let's say hypothetically, the killing was not done by a human? Let's pretend that a machine does the killing, that the human is stripped from the process entirely. This would then highlight that the law delivers the verdict and punishment (this is how I view it now anyway, not as a second killing). Does this not negate the second crime and highlight that law has been practiced and the required action or punishment according to the law has been met?
PS - I'm at work on nightshift and nothing is happening hence my frequent posts
ThisIsACoolName
Member
Find a way to reduce crime. Better education, fight poverty... something, I don't know, but the problem is not that we have nothing to do with the criminals, the problem is that we have too many of them.
Obviously the prisons are failing and the death sentence is wrong. It's archaic. I know what I'm saying is nothing new or brilliant, but it just seems that people are more concerned with how to deal with the people who are already criminals, when it should be the ones who are going to become criminals that we should be worried about.
As for what to do with existing prisoners? Well, that's a fucking mystery. A shit load of them probably don't deserve to be there, for one.
King Richard
Hello there
Well the second crime isn't there anyways. We as citizens grant state governments the right to use the death penalty for heinous crimes such as murder. We as citizens know the consequences for such actions if one is to committ said crime. Besides, it's not "one person" doing the injection, or hanging, or whatever method is used. It's the state government who is following through with this punishment, approved by us citizens. So the whole second crime argument is moot.
AchrisK
Weakling
An eye for an eye (EDIT: plus the court system).
This is not one person killing another person for killing someone. This is the government governing.
The death sentance in the USA may not be much of a deterrant, but punishment for crimes SHOULD be a deterrant, and I think that is part of the problem in the US. In countries where punishment fits crime (or worse) there is less crime. People choose to commit crimes, so they bear the responsibility. How can it be unfair or imhumane when the consequences are known, and the individual chooses to do the crime anyway?
This is not one person killing another person for killing someone. This is the government governing.
The death sentance in the USA may not be much of a deterrant, but punishment for crimes SHOULD be a deterrant, and I think that is part of the problem in the US. In countries where punishment fits crime (or worse) there is less crime. People choose to commit crimes, so they bear the responsibility. How can it be unfair or imhumane when the consequences are known, and the individual chooses to do the crime anyway?
King Richard
Hello there
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
When a harmful person is entirely neutralized, regardless of what he did, there is absolutely no reason or need whatsoever to kill him. Nothing merits death short of imminent threat. For example, if you are facing your attacker and you have to defend yourself, or if you have to take down a tyrant in order to secure the safety of thousands and there's no real way to simply take him alive.
That is what the prison system has become, largely, but also, sentences are determined taking all elements of the crime into account so that the judge and jury can create what is essentially an arbitrary period of time in which they feel it would allow the criminal to reform himself and no longer be a danger to society. Basically what I'm saying is that the prison system and its arbitrary sentencing structure needs serious overhauling, and more countries (and states, like mine) need to abolish the death penalty. While the US does have an overcrowding problem, this is largely due to the arbitrary sentencing structure, as well as arbitrary jailing time for insignificant offenses such as minor traffic violations, possession of marijuana for recreational use in private quarters, etc. I think that there are several things we can do to alleviate the stress of the overcrowding in our prisons that would not compromise our safety, such as administering more community service over jail time for non-violent offenses. And frankly, with the money that we would save by abolishing capital punishment, we can realistically build more prisons at cost and balance even, or even with profit.
The law is a man-made construct, and so is the machine. It is still man killing another man, regardless of how it's done. Even as it stands now (or stood before lethal injection came under trial), it is the injections that kill, and not the person who administers them. There is no way of escaping the second crime, regardless of who actually does it, because it's still on the hands of those responsible for setting the entire process of execution in motion, and on the hands of the law itself. Whether a man kills another man or a machine kills another man, the unjustified, inhumane, and unnecessary nature of the act is still there.
ThisIsACoolName
Member
But so many crimes are committed out of passion or desperation. I don't think any sort of deterrent means anything in those situations.
skeptik
Member
- Feb 7, 2003
- 24,413
- 71
- 48
This doesn't even make sense. A citizenry does not have the authority to one of its own to death. You are not granted any right to take the life of another person, and this is unalterable, regardless of what another person does, even if it is taking a life. The argument is far from "moot," since what you're suggesting is wrong. We do not have any right over the life of another person. And the requirement of an actual human killing another human for capital punishment to be wrong is absurd. Regardless of how the person is killed, he is still killed, and it is still unjustified. There is still a second crime, whether or not it can be placed on the head of a single person.
As usual, you have no sources. How do you know, firstly, that places that have punishment to fit the crime have less crime? Where are these places? How do you know that the punishment is the cause of less crime? Can you prove any of this? Saying that punishment SHOULD be a deterrent doesn't make it into a deterrent. It simply isn't. If somebody is going to kill somebody, they probably don't really care about the consequences.
Life Sucks
and then you die
I support the death penalty for murder only, and only if it is 100% certain that the person is guilty. I do NOT support the death penalty for any other crime than murder, including rape or treason, or for a murder where it is not 100% certain the suspect is guilty.
AchrisK
Weakling
Right, this is why the court system is so important, and I think it is an integral part of the whole thing.
The Ozzman
Melted by feels
The only time when killing someone is justified is either in war or in self defense. Even in war, though, it's still debatable on how justifiable it is
Until society develops a judicial system that is infalliable (which will be never) I am not for it. I also think the way it is implemented in the US is just extremely inefficient and removes what I would say is the main advantage of it in the first place, which is to make it less of a social and financial burden on society. But if you let inmates rot away on death row for 20 years first before pulling the switch, combined with the ridiculous costs that the death pentalty brings with it, then what benefit does it have really. It's already shown not to be an actual deterrent for crime so basically I just fail to see any advantage to it whatsoever.
My biggest issue with it though is the first thing I mentioned. People have been wrongly put to death in the past and undoubtedly will in the future. Atleast with imprisonment you can say sorry, give them a pile of money and send them on their way, allowing them to have some semblance of their normal life back. Apologies don't mean too much when you're dead. I don't condone any system where innocent people ocasionally have their lives taken away, not even for "the greater good", and especially not when there appears to be no greater good in the first place.
My biggest issue with it though is the first thing I mentioned. People have been wrongly put to death in the past and undoubtedly will in the future. Atleast with imprisonment you can say sorry, give them a pile of money and send them on their way, allowing them to have some semblance of their normal life back. Apologies don't mean too much when you're dead. I don't condone any system where innocent people ocasionally have their lives taken away, not even for "the greater good", and especially not when there appears to be no greater good in the first place.
Zephyrus
Tyrants and Slaves
Because most of the time it is their intention never to get caught, regardless of the degree. If you commit a crime and expect to be put to death for it, that's being inhumane unto one's self.
Similar threads
