Posted July 1, 2008 I really can't understand what thought process people have gone through to attain the idea that the death penalty is a good idea. I'm very pro-euthanasia, but only voluntary euthanasia... You seem to be confusing prison with the Ritz... Have you actually ever been in one? You can never, ever, ever be 100% certain of someone's guilt. If I some how was caperble to thinking that murdering someone and not having the murderer punished is a really good idea, then I would still point out that there's always the possibility someone else is behind all the attacks pinned on Bin Laden, and he's just a crazy fellow claiming responsibility. Some people have far more priveliged lives in prison than they do outside of it. Prison ain't like a 5-star hotel, but it's better than being homeless or on the doll living out of a scummy bedsit. In prison your life is also arranged for you, which really clicks with some people, causing them to re-offend in order to get locked up again. The current prison system doesn't work (i'm not suggesting all these people should be killed btw). Also, if Bin Laden was living in a country with the death penalty and claimed responsibility for something he wasn't involved in, knowing that it would bring him the death penalty then surely that means he wants to be killed? It's practically euthanasia And a single last point; rehab is an easier way out than the death penalty. If you are anti-capital punishment for that reason then surely you are also anti-rehab? I'm not talking to anyone specifically here, but just pointing out that the punishment argument is flawed. It leaves prison as the only answer, and that's only an option because it's a damn site easier than actually dealing with the problem in any way, shape or form. Sweeping things under the carpet FTW! Long live Britannia! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 1, 2008 I really can't understand what thought process people have gone through to attain the idea that the death penalty is a good idea. I'm slightly confused to the opposite. It seems to be a general consensus that a someone who rapes a kid and murders the parents deserves a chance to reabilitate. Or just stay alive in prison and "think about what he's done" for the rest of his life and call that suitable punishment. I know it's not as black-and-white with terms of lesser/serious crimes, so a line must be drawn, and I assume one was drawn in the olden days. On a side note for those who think some people deserve a chance to reabilitate, how many chances do these people get before we get them to sit on the naughty step from 25 to life? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 1, 2008 As of right now, I am against it. I think that the death penalty is kind of the easy way out. I mean personally, I would take the death penalty over a life long sentence, knowing that there is no way in hell you're getting out. So I think all those sick bastards should just rot in jail Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 1, 2008 Fair enough. Ok, I don't like Coldplay. It shouldn't stop your enjoyment of them. Woah now, I never said I liked them, myself. I do. But, my point is: Um... er... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 1, 2008 I'm slightly confused to the opposite. It seems to be a general consensus that a someone who rapes a kid and murders the parents deserves a chance to reabilitate. Or just stay alive in prison and "think about what he's done" for the rest of his life and call that suitable punishment. It may not be the perfect punishment, but life imprisonment is at least reasonably humane, unlike, say, legally murdering people. Also, what if you were to find yourself framed for murder? You'd probably rather be in prison hoping someone would finally prove your innocence than have it proved, as it so often is in the US, after you're dead. As always, you can never be certain of someone's guilt, so an absolute punishment can never be realistically, justly utilised, even if it wasn't murder. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 That mathimatical argument is completely flawed. You give the belief of no longer existing a numerical value of 0? So what you are saying is that the idea of no longer existing is less scary than the idea of spending the rest of your life in prison? It might well be less scary, but that all depends on the person's outlook on life. If they like being alive then ANY death is going to be worse than prison, if they see death as an escape then death will always be better than prison. The numerical values aren't representative of how scary punishments are, they're representative of the unpleasantness of the punishments. Someone who does not exist experiences nothing whatsoever, and so by definition the payoff is 0. Sure, the person might be worried before being killed, but then they blink out of existence and no longer have anything to worry about. You may be right about the scores for a rehab camp, but I disagree with the whole approach - surely there should be some form of punishment for those who commit crimes? Note: The whole model is likely to be very flawed, as it's far too simple for a start, and it doesn't really correspond to real world issues - for instance, level of punishment is by no means linear. It was just handy to demonstrate my reasoning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 As of right now, I am against it. I think that the death penalty is kind of the easy way out. I mean personally, I would take the death penalty over a life long sentence, knowing that there is no way in hell you're getting out. So I think all those sick bastards should just rot in jail If they could literally rot in jail then i'd be happy with that, it costs the state barely anything and is an effective punishment/deterent. The problem is we have to take care of these people, and i really, genuinely don't see the point in taking care of anyone that doesn't contribute to the wellfare of the state. I'm even more against taking care of those who degrade it. It's a shame we can't just re-open to coal mines and put em to work tbh. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 "An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." - Specky git. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 I really can't understand what thought process people have gone through to attain the idea that the death penalty is a good idea. I'm very pro-euthanasia, but only voluntary euthanasia... You seem to be confusing prison with the Ritz... Have you actually ever been in one? You can never, ever, ever be 100% certain of someone's guilt. Yes you can and most extreme cases are usually easy to solve because of this. You've just basically said that EVERY PERSON who is in jail might not have done the crime they were done for. I beg to differ that, maybe a couple, but no more, especially when stuff has be caught on cameras and so on, how can you deny that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 Also, what if you were to find yourself framed for murder? You'd probably rather be in prison hoping someone would finally prove your innocence than have it proved, as it so often is in the US, after you're dead. Then you'd be screwed. Unless in the nick of time you were able to pull out a few bits of The Fugitive or Double Jeopardy magic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 One murder would not be extreme. Extreme would be a guy killing 30+ people for example. Serial killers and the like. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 Yes you can and most extreme cases are usually easy to solve because of this. You've just basically said that EVERY PERSON who is in jail might not have done the crime they were done for. I beg to differ that, maybe a couple, but no more, especially when stuff has be caught on cameras and so on, how can you deny that? Wrong place at the wrong time? Framed? Forensic error? They look very similar to someone in CCTV footage? Everyone may not have done the crime. If you're of the opinion that everyone who probably did something definitely did, then god forbid you ever are required for jury service if the death penalty is reintroduced.... Only 2 things are ever certain in my book - maths and self-existence. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 I never said everyone might have done what they were put away for "a couple might of not" is what i put, but I bet most did. And I doubt if they were camera evidence that a wrong place wrong time comment would work in a court of law. You'd be on camera, right there, ON VIDEO COMMITTING CRIME! If you used that excuse in the shop after I'd caught you shoplifting on camera, i'd laugh right in your face and call you an idiot (which i did to a woman last night funny enough when she denied taking 2 blue wkd bottles.) I get some right shoplifters at work ¬_¬ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 I doubt if they were camera evidence that a wrong place wrong time comment would work in a court of law. You'd be on camera, right there, ON VIDEO COMMITTING CRIME! It probably wouldn't work as a defence in a court, even if true, but there is the possibility that the defendant is telling the truth, so killing them is unjust. If it's later proven that they're innocent and they were locked up for life, they walk free. If they're later proven totally innocent and after they've been murdered by the state, then I can't see how you can call that justice. Well, actually, I can, but only if you're a colossal moron. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 It probably wouldn't work as a defence in a court, even if true, but there is the possibility that the defendant is telling the truth, so killing them is unjust. If it's later proven that they're innocent and they were locked up for life, they walk free. If they're later proven totally innocent and after they've been murdered by the state, then I can't see how you can call that justice. Well, actually, I can, but only if you're a colossal moron. But i thought you were saying life imprisonment is a WORSE punishment than capital punishment. Surely by that reasoning it's better to kill an innocent man than lock him up for life with the vain hope that he can prove his innocence? If he is never proved innocent then he'll have suffered for a crime he's not commited, by your own reasoning prison is worse than death You can't have it both ways Fish, maybe you should start considering the consistency of your views? It's not the first time i've noticed this sort of thing from you in a debate topic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 Lets take the whole judicial system out of the equation for a second in a hypothetical situation. If a deranged killer murdered one of my family members and i managed to capture him, would I A. Keep him in a cage for the rest of his life, feed him, medicate him, and dispose of his waste, etc. -or- B. Erase the burden entirely by ending his life I can imagine how disgusted some victims families are when they realize theyre taxes are helping fund said killer's livelihood in prison. Having said that, im not against the death penalty for the right candidates Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 Won't somebody please think of the children. And I'm being serious. Think about what children, growing up, must learn from the idea of the death penalty. Can we not take the teachings of our Lord and learn forgiveness and love? Peace maaaaan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 But i thought you were saying life imprisonment is a WORSE punishment than capital punishment. Surely by that reasoning it's better to kill an innocent man than lock him up for life with the vain hope that he can prove his innocence? If he is never proved innocent then he'll have suffered for a crime he's not commited, by your own reasoning prison is worse than death The difference is, life imprisonment can be stopped - they'll have lost a lot of time, but at least they still have something. If you've killed them, there's no turning back. If the accused is never proven innocent, then at least they've had a life. Oh, and I never said life imprisonment is worse than state-backed murder - it's the greatest humane punishment available to people who think murder is a bad thing. Having said that, im not against the death penalty for the right candidates Condoning state-backed murder is the start of a slippery slope. Oh, and as I've been saying, there are no "right candidates" - the absolute punishment is only acceptable on those who's guilty is absolute, which can never, ever occur. You can't have it both ways Fish, maybe you should start considering the consistency of your views? It's not the first time i've noticed this sort of thing from you in a debate topic. People often mistake complexity of inconsistency. In the case of the death penalty, I have at no time contradicted myself: I believe the killing of someone by the state who is not a clear and present threat to others is never just If I did, then it would require them to be proven 100% guilty of a very serious crime Proof of 100% guilt is impossible, so employing irreversible punishments bar the loss of personal liberties is always unjust The above two points are irrelevant, however, as the state-backed murder that is capital punishment is something I am against in principle, let alone in practice Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 It may not be the perfect punishment, but life imprisonment is at least reasonably humane, unlike, say, legally murdering people. Because brutally murdering innocent people is very humane. Imagine if your child had been sexually abused and then tortured and brutally murdered. If you then suggested that the man who did it have rehabilitation over the death penalty then I would lose all respect for you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 Because brutally murdering innocent people is very humane. It's not, which is exactly why you do the humane thing - if you want go back to tit-for-tat punishment, then you seem to have missed the idea of civilisation... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 It's not, which is exactly why you do the humane thing - if you want go back to tit-for-tat punishment, then you seem to have missed the idea of civilisation... Civilisation is only for civilised people. If they take somebody's human rights then why should they deserve any themselves? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 Imagine if your child had been sexually abused and then tortured and brutally murdered. If you then suggested that the man who did it have rehabilitation over the death penalty then I would lose all respect for you. Looks like you don't respect me, then - I'm a humanist. I'd rather demonstrate that I am a better person than him by letting him live whilst removed from society than having him executed. Oh, and if I had him killed, and it was later demonstrated it was someone else, or he was forced to do it, then I would feel terrible. Civilisation is only for civilised people. If they take somebody's human rights then why should they deserve any themselves? Because it allows you to demonstrate that you are civilised, and also, by your logic, if the removal of rights results in the removal of the remover's rights, then the remover's remover must loose theirs too, and we get a nice long chain of execution. Unless, of course, you decide that a select few can remove rights without punishment, but that still runs into the old argument of "what if they're actually innocent?" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 Looks like you don't respect me, then - I'm a humanist. I'd rather demonstrate that I am a better person than him by letting him live whilst removed from society than having him executed.Oh, and if I had him killed, and it was later demonstrated it was someone else, or he was forced to do it, then I would feel terrible. Yes you would, but I think you've been watching too much TV. Very few people are wrongly convicted. And if there was enough doubt then the death penalty wouldn't be used. And I do respect you. I just think you are a little naive in your views. I may be wrong but I'd be willing to bet that if something like this happened to a member of your family or somebody close then you would change your views. (God forbid if anything did. Nobody should have to go through that which is why I believe in the death penalty) Maybe you don't know these sorts of people. They are repeat offenders. They don't want to be rehabilitated. They are scum. Because it allows you to demonstrate that you are civilised, and also, by your logic, if the removal of rights results in the removal of the remover's rights, then the remover's remover must loose theirs too, and we get a nice long chain of execution. Unless, of course, you decide that a select few can remove rights without punishment, but that still runs into the old argument of "what if they're actually innocent?" No because their rights would be removed because they removed somebody elses who didn't deserve for their rights to be removed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 Yes you would, but I think you've been watching too much TV. Very few people are wrongly convicted. And if there was enough doubt then the death penalty wouldn't be used. What if it was you? What if it looked like you committed the crime, but you know you didn't, and you couldn't prove it? What if you were framed? I'd have thought you'd rather be stuck in a jail cell with the hope of being freed later then being inconveniently dead. And I do respect you. I just think you are a little naive in your views. I may be wrong but I'd be willing to bet that if something like this happened to a member of your family or somebody close then you would change your views. (God forbid if anything did. Nobody should have to go through that which is why I believe in the death penalty) Maybe you don't know these sorts of people. They are repeat offenders. They don't want to be rehabilitated. They are scum. Well, I hope you're not a betting man. Killing them doesn't solve the problem any better than locking them up - if locked up, they may just realise how evil they are, and feel really, really shite for it. Also, if they were killed and then later proven innocent, then I'd feel awful. I have met these kind of people, by the way. They're scum, yes, but they're still humans. Oh, and as for rehab, that video someone posted a few pages back about a special prison in Norway is well worth watching. The right social mentality combined with the right kind of rehab works wonders. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted July 2, 2008 How wonderful it must be to live in your naive world. Do you know any of these people? Maybe you live in some world where criminals get a slap on the wrist and then become modern citizens. But in the real world the people who would quite easily murder 5 people without even shedding a tear cannot be reformed. And why should they deserve to? Why do they have the right to live when they have taken that right from others? Two wrongs DO make a right. Well why exactly should the government or anyone else have the right to take their lives? Why should a court of law be able to take a calculated, thought based decision (something that most murders aren't) and use it to end someones life? Perhaps some people can not be reformed but that doesn't mean that they should die. Why not keep them round to do some sort of service to the community? Another death does not solve anything and certainly not one from the hands of the governemnt. Yes you would, but I think you've been watching too much TV. Very few people are wrongly convicted. And if there was enough doubt then the death penalty wouldn't be used. And I do respect you. I just think you are a little naive in your views. I may be wrong but I'd be willing to bet that if something like this happened to a member of your family or somebody close then you would change your views. (God forbid if anything did. Nobody should have to go through that which is why I believe in the death penalty) Maybe you don't know these sorts of people. They are repeat offenders. They don't want to be rehabilitated. They are scum. No because their rights would be removed because they removed somebody elses who didn't deserve for their rights to be removed. That seems fairly naive to me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
