Five reasons to oppose death penalty
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General discussions
Forum Description: Discuss any topic at all that is not music-related
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=25656
Printed Date: July 19 2025 at 03:37
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Five reasons to oppose death penalty
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Subject: Five reasons to oppose death penalty
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 17:39
|
I quote after http://www.nodeathpenalty.org - http://www.nodeathpenalty.org :
1. The death penalty is racist. The 1972 Furman V. Georgia case abolished the death penalty for four years on the grounds that capital punishment was rife with racial disparities. Over twenty five years later, those disparities are as glaring as ever. African Americans are 12% of the U.S. population, but are 43% of prisoners on death row. Although Blacks constitute 50% of all murder victims, 83% of the victims in death penalty cases are white. Since 1976 only ten executions involved a white defendant who had killed a Black victim. In all, only 37 of the over 18,000 executions in this country's history involved a white person being punished for killing a Black person. A comprehensive Georgia study found that killers of whites are 4.3 times more likely to receive a death sentence than killers of Blacks. More than 75% of those on federal death row are non-white. Of the 156 federal death penalty prosecutions approved by the Attorney General since 1988, 74% of the defendants were non-white. The crime of being poor and Black Girvies Davis spent 16 years on death row. He was sentenced to death in 1978, accused of being an accomplice in a robbery in which someone else shot and killed the victim. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime. He was convicted purely on the basis of a signed "confession" -- a confession in which he also confessed to 9 other murders known to have been committed by others. He was illiterate at the time he supposedly penned the confession. Girvies said that police took him out for a ride and threatened to shoot him "while trying to escape" if he didn't sign the confession. The police admitted that they took him for a drive, claiming it was to search for evidence! Despite this information, Illinois gov. Jim Edgar refused to commute Girvies Davis sentence or allow a retrial, and he was executed on May 17, 1995. He died because he was poor and Black. 2. The death penalty punishes the poor. If you can afford good legal representation, you won't end up on death row. Over 90 percent of defendants charged with capital crimes are indigent and cannot afford to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney to represent them. They are forced to use inexperienced, underpaid court-appointed attorneys. In most states the pay for court appointed attorneys is so low that lawyers assigned to capital cases will lose $20-$30 an hour if they do an adequate job. In Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi defense attorneys are paid a flat fee of $1,000 -- which translates into about 5 dollars an hour for most lawyers. In 1996 Clinton cut federal funding to 20 legal resource centers which provided counsel to poor defendants. Now, all of the centers that received this funding have shut down. Many capital trials last less than a week -- hardly enough time to present a good defense. The wealthy don't get punished Between 1971 and 1977, an estimated 500 people burned to death in Ford Pinto crashes. Ford Motor Company knew that the Pinto's rear gas tank tended to puncture even in low-speed crashes. But Ford made a calculation that it could save millions of dollars if it opted to pay for damages and medical bills in Pinto explosion cases rather than install an $11 safety device that prevented the gas tank ruptures. Ford made a calculated decision to sell a lethal product, yet it was acquited of criminal charges. But even had they been convicted, there would be no Ford Motor Company executives sitting on death row. When it comes to capital punishment, our justice system can be compared to a fishing net in the ocean which has the peculiar quality of catching the minnows and letting the whales pass through! 3. The death penalty condemns the innocent to die. Since 1976, more than 100 people have been released from prison after being sentenced to death despite their innocence. In other words, 1 in 7 of those on death row have been freed after being fully exonerated. The book, In Spite of Innocence, notes that between 1900 and 1992 there have been 416 documented cases of innocent persons who have been convicted of murder or capital rape -- a third of whom were given a death sentence. The authors discovered that in 23 of these cases, the person was executed. Illinois has released as many from death row as it has executed since 1976. As a result, an Illinois Supreme Court Justice said, "Despite the courts' efforts to fashion a death penalty scheme that is just..., the system is not working. Innocent people are being sentenced to death... If this is the best our state can do, we have no business sending people to their deaths." President Clinton has called appeals by death row prisoners "ridiculous" and "interminable." He signed a law that limits prisoners to a single habeas corpus appeal within one year of conviction. Under this law, many of those released from death row due to innocence since 1976 would be dead. "I am an innocent man." Leonel Torres Herrera was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1982 murders of two police officers. New evidence was brought forward which proved that Herrera's brother committed the murders. By Texas law, which states that any new evidence must be presented within 30 days of the conviction, this new revelation was irrelevant. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Texas ruling, arguing that Herrera's claim of "actual innocence" was in itself not a constitutional claim for which judicial relief could be granted. Thus, though the court agreed he was innocent, Leonel was executed on May 12, 1993. 4. The death penalty is not a deterent to violent crime. An FBI study shows that states which have abolished the death penalty averaged lower murder rates than states which have not. More executions, more murders Texas moved from its first execution after Furman in 1982 to becoming the national leader in the use of the death penalty. During the same period, the state also experienced a tremendous growth in its violent crime rate. From 1982 to 1991, the national crime rate rose by 5%. In the same period, the Texas crime rate rose by 24%, and the violent crime rate in Texas rose by nearly 46%. In Texas, more people die from gunshot wounds than traffic accidents. A strong case can be made that, rather than decreasing murder, capital punishment actually has a brutalizing effect on society, contributing to an increase in murder. 5. The death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment." In the decades since Furman 13 people have been executed who were under the age of 18 when they committed the crime for which they were convicted. Seventy more juveniles are currently on death row awaiting execution. Since Furman 34 mentally retarded inmates have been executed. RICKY RAY RECTOR died in order to help Bill Clinton get elected President. Ricky was black and mentally retarded. In 1992, Clinton left the campaign trail and returned to Arkansas to oversee Ricky's execution so he could show that he was "tough on crime." Ricky had absolutely no understanding of what was about to happen to him. As a part of his last meal, he requested pie for dessert, but explained he would eat it when he came back. He was executed on Jan. 24, 1992. I think it speaks for itself. Nothing to add. The third point especially makes me mad!  ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Replies:
Posted By: chamberry
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 20:24
|
I never liked the idea and posibly never will. I think is wrong and those points above clearly proves it.
------------- 
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 22:00
|
Spoken like a person that doesn't live in the US.
My city of Baltimore was the murder capitol of the US a few years ago.We have a trial going on here right now where 2 grown men slit 3 children's throats...all of the children were 3 and under.What do you think is a fitting punishment for them? -------------  |
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 22:02
Life Sentence.
Life Sentence is a good punishment actually, because I believe the death penalty makes it easier for the murderers to get away with, such as the murderer of hundreds in the Oklahoma bombings.
|
TheProgtologist wrote:Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 22:05
|
Do you pay taxes?Each of those men will cost the American taxpayer between 80-100k a year.
Do you really want your hard earned tax dollars to go for supporting those animals for life? ------------- |
Posted By: zappaholic
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 22:08
|
One big reason NOT to oppose the death penalty:
If you commit a murder, or rape someone, or molest a child, YOU HAVE GIVEN UP YOUR RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS A HUMAN BEING.
------------- "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 22:14
|
Meh, I'm more concerned about the 2nd Amendment. I'd rather have no civilian gun use at all. Handguns for one, should be banned completely IMO. No gun should be automatic. Shotguns and snipers should be outlawed. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 22:26
|
I don't support the death penalty, but that's based on a personal philosophy that nobody including the state has the right to take a person's like. This same tired argument is continuously laid out against the death penalty, and its points are all inadequate at best. Points one and two are hardly means for abolishing the death penalty. Even if a so called racial bias exists, which is hardly proven by those statistics which could be for a myriad of other reasons, the same so called bias would also exist in non-capital cases. Same to be said about legal representation, yes the rich can afford better lawyers, but that hardly constitutes a bias. Again, the same "bias" would then exist in non-capital cases, so should the system of trial by jury be eliminated on those grounds? Due to new technology, the extreme care now taken in capital cases, and the reluctance of states to execute it death row inmates, point three has become all but mute. There's been innocent people who have spent their life in prison and rotted to death. Unfortunately, innocent people will be wrongly convicted in either circumstance. Point Four: So let's reverse the statement. You're saying that the death penalty actually encourages crime? That statement is just as ridiculous as the statistics backing it. Statistics are clever little trigger points that you can throw into a conversation to win over the majority of the public, but if one were to actual analyse most of them, a multitude of explanations are apparant instead of the one trying to be sold to you. Point 5 is very outdated. Due to since passed legislation mentally retarded criminals and juvenilles cannot be executed in America.
Due to trial costs springing from the millions of appeals inevitably ensuing after a death conviction, the average death row inmate costs the public more than if he'd spent his life in prison. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 22:56
It costs money to execute people, I'm not talking about trials and etc, but just the process itself. Those people also spend time in jail during the process as well. Since taxpayers are going to spend money either way, why not spend it on a more accurate punishment, and possibly a more effective deterrent.
I think if the death penalty were eliminated, the focus would shift towards the effects of life imprisonment. At the same time arguement is made against life imprisonment, more information will come out about just how bad it is, and this press may make it a more effective deterrent.
-------------  
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls." |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 23:06
I'm not so sure that would happen. No politician would go as far as to criticize life imprisonment for fear of appearing to be weak on crime. And I'm not sure how effective of a deterrent it would be given that federal prisons tend to offer a better living standard than most inner cities. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 23:17
I agree, but even worst than the cost we have:
Just understand this, if this guys escape or are pardoned they will go to the streets and their hate against society will increase exponentially, so the danger will be higher. I don't know if death penalty is deterrent and honestly I don't care, this guys are beyond redemption and if dead they will no longer be a risk for society.
Until when will people care more of the civil rights of the criminal than for the victim and their families?
Iván
BTW: I don't deny there probably is a racist component in the number of condemned, but it's very easy to play with statistics
1.- African Americans are 12% of the U.S. population, but are 43% of prisoners on death row.
The percentage doesn't mention if this kind of crimes are commited with more frequency in African American communities and by African Americans, which is also a posibility.
How many Latinos are in death row? Aren't Latins also a minority? Aren't most Latins poor inmigrants? And Chineese, Japanese, etc?
2.- Although Blacks constitute 50% of all murder victims,
According to Department of Justice statistics, 94 percent of African Americans killed between 1976 and 1999 were killed by other African Americans, so 47 of each 50 African American killed is murdered by another African American.
This means that that exatly 47% of the crimes in USA are commited by the 12% of African Americans.
3.- 83% of the victims in death penalty cases are white.
Do you forget that 56% of the people in death role are not African Americans? Do they mention how many of this white victims were killed by Whites, Latins, African Americans or any other racial group?.
Also important to notice that most minority group victims are young between 14 and 24 during gang fights (Also by Department of Justice) so it's harder to find one individual person guilty to take to the death row, in the case of White victimss, most are killed individually during an assault so the criminal is easier to find.
But of course an African American, Latino or other minority group murderer of a white victim will probably get death penalty easier than in the opposite case.
If you don't give full statistics this are worth nothing, data can be manipulated
------------- 
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 03 2006 at 23:52
Yes all those possibilities are problems, but the way to come about fixing them is not to start whacking people off. Unemployment could easily be solved by killing all unemployed people, but would that be acceptable? An exagerration I know, but you see my point.
Those problems can be fixed by building more prisons, fixing parole laws, and increasing security in prisons.
Call me idealistic and impractical but isn't rehabilitation the ultimate goal? ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: AtLossForWords
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 00:04
I didn't say a politician would support it, but at least, you could expect a political action committee to address the effects of life imprisonment.
It's true that federal prisons can offer a better standard of living that certain areas of inner cities, but an inner city can't effect the pyche of a human being the wail a prison can. Prisoners are cut off from society, detached from their desires. They can't fullfil their lives the same way in prison. When someone is executed it's over, but when someone contemplates whatever horrors they can concieve of living in a separate controlled among the other dregs of society, they may think twice about evil actions. -------------
"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls." |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 00:08
Well, appart from being an idealist which is not bad, you haven't seen what I seen.
I made legal penal practice in prisons here in Perú where we don't have death penalty and listened criminals speaking of killing as if they were going to the movies, really it's scary.
This people are beyond redemption, they are not going to be rehabilited, it's impossible, they even told me things like "What's the problem? We kill, recieve 10 years, pay 2 prison days for one working journey and are out in 4 years with good conduct."
This guys will be saved by nobody,. they are cold blooded, not animals because animals kill for hunger, this are worst, they rape, kill, assault and stab you and then go home to kiss their kids.
Now lets see your solutions:
Those who kill, lost their right to live (except some eceptional cases) not the state, the jury, Bush or Arnold take their right to live, they lost their right by their own hand. Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 00:40
The right to life is intrinsic to a human being. It can't be loss, it can't be taken away no matter the crime. I'm not saying there's perfect security but heightening it would decrease the amount of escapees which already really isn't that high. Most of those who escape are recaptured before any crime can be committed. Overall I'm not a big fan of parole. In most situations it shouldn't be allowed, and I think the laws should be changed to not allow it in those situations. Yes I'm aware that more prisons would equate to higher tax dollars, and as much as it pains me to say it, I believe it would be worth it in this situation. Yes some criminals are beyond rehabilitation, child molesters come to mind given the recidivism, but some have hope. What about the man who walks in on his wife having sex with another man and shoots them both. Yes disgusting, but the man is not a cold-blooded killer and a repeated offense is very low. I'd rather see this man live a fulfilling life, fighting to come to terms with himself, than lying on a table with a syringe in his arm.
Agree fully. The loss of freedom is a horror I'd rather not think of. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: NetsNJFan
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 00:52
|
Its a tought issue, I think both sides have very valid viewpoints here. I think it should be reserved for only the most egrecious offenses. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 00:57
-------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 01:42
A person who assaults someone is deprived of his freedom until his debt has been paid, then it is regranted to him. If we had the same liberty to manipulate one's life like this I'd be for a temporary sentence of death, but until then I think we should have a little more respect for a person's most basic right.
A personal tradgedy will do little to effect my opinion on something. Why take the risk? That's fragile ground you're jumping on there. If we were to find a gene that makes someone more likely to commit murder, should we imprison those people before any murder is commited? Why take the risk? You have to weight the pros and cons. I think it turns out in my favor here.
Up until five years ago I could hop on a bus and in 7 mins be at a prison. I slept fine. Build them in the city, build them in the country.
Yes I'm aware a man in that situation would never recieve the death penalty and would probably get a relatively lenient sentence for two cases of first degree manslaughter. But I was offering an example of when rehabilitation is clearly possible. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 02:00
-------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 02:58
Obviously on this first point we stand idealogically opposed. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. The only compelling arguement I can see for death is for someone who is such a high security risk that any chance in escape is too dangerous to take, for example Osama Bin Laden. In that case I'll regretably accept the death penalty. But when a prisoner can be reasonably contained instead of killed, save a life.
Ok a criminal doesn't have it better off inside jail than outside. Yes, federal prisons at times can be little more than resort homes, but God help you if you find yourself in a prison at the state level. Plus say all you want about the supposed care they are in but the fact that someone tells you when to watch tv, when to eat, when to sleep, when to wake up, takes away something dearer than those luxories which you are provided with. He may have a better standard of living than the homeless man. But being able to chose which step you sleep on is better than being told to sleep in a warm bed if you ask me.
As I said before, some criminals can be rehabilitated and others can't. I accept that reality and I even pointed out in cases of pedafilia that rehabilitation is especially impossible. I said rehabilitation is the goal; I never said it's always an attainable one. So lock them up for life, don't take it from them.
I was not making a comparison; I was showing a circumstance where rehabilitation is possible. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 03:18
|
Although a left winger, I am generally opposed to the death penalty, BUT there are some good reasons to apply it, when there is no hope of turning the person around.
Guys like Dutroux (the serial pedophile and murderer a decade ago in Belgium) are not even feeling guilty and the only thing they regret is geeting caught. This type of arseholes are constant danger and predatory AND WILL ALWAYS BE. In this case the only sensible solution is get rid of the risk. Nothing inhumane about it.
I once discussed this with a real religious person completely opposed to the death penalty, as he wanted these murderers (I am talking of those that are really munderes >> not involuntary mansleughter , usually those will regret their act) to feel guilt and remorse about his act. As if someone intentionally killing another that has done him nothing beforehand (this means that people out for revenge after not being able to get justice done are not included for death penalty either), could possibly regret it...........
For some reasons , I do not think a terrorist acting on a political ideal should get death penalty (outside of the reason this would likely mahe him a martyr to the eyes of others such people), because a terrorist act on desperation >>> or else he is manipulated.
If the cost can be a reason, I am more concerned of the risk of innocent getting killed again whether in a jailbreak or early releases on basis of good conduct in prison.
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Blacksword
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 03:22
|
I completely agree with the points Tuzvihar made. Beyond that I wont contribute further to this discussion. I know how I feel about it, and I know what the arguments are by those who support the death penalty. They wont change my mind as I instinctively believe they are wrong. ------------- Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy! |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 03:23
No offense but to say that there's nothing inhumane about killing a human being, regardless of the extremity of the situation, sickens me. I agree the risk must be gotten rid of so lock the man in jail for his entire life, and trust me a repeat child offender will most likely be beaten to death in prison as murderers seem to keep pretty high standards for acceptable neighbors.
Like I said in a very very extreme case where any chance of escape is too great. An inmate of Osama Bin Laden's infamy, may regretably have to be killed. And I say regretably. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 03:29
Same for me. This is a topic that concerns me greatly, and I often get into arguments about that with people I know . Neither party, I'm afraid, will change their minds. Therefore, it's better not to getfurther involved , as these discussions can really lead to bad blood between people who would otherwise be in friendly terms. The matter at hand is too delicate and complex to be subjected to generalisations. |
Posted By: Rust
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 03:34
Equality 7-2521 - But being able to chose which step you sleep on is better than being told to sleep in a warm bed if you ask me.
  ------------- We got to pump the stuff to make us tough from the heart Its astart What we need is awareness we cant get careless Mental self defensive fitness Make everybody see in order to fight the powers that be |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 03:34
|
I don't care about any other reasons behind the opposition of death penalty, there is only one that matters to me: humans shouldn't be in charge on whether any living being deserves to live or not. Restrict freedom under, demand fines, but depriving a man's life is something only God should do. -- Ivan------------- sig |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 03:34
You can't simply abandon an issue because it's a sensitive topic, or because you don't think you will change people's minds. Now yes a discusion about the death penalty on PA is relatively unimportant. But if I could change one person's mind on this issue I'll die a happy man. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 03:49
I'm with both of you on this one - I've often thought about starting a debate on this self same subject, but have refrained for the simple reason it is such an emotive issue. The arguments from both sides are always deeply entrenched, and to be honest, I don't believe there is an absolute right or wrong on this subject. I will, however, continue to read the thread with interest, as so far, the debate has been argued well (and responsibly) from both sides of the divide... I hope it continues. ------------- 
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 04:02
|
Listen, it's not a question of cowardice or anything - anybody who knows me personally also knows I'm not afraid to tackle sensitive issues in the least. The thing is, it seems to me what we call a "wall-to-wall" situation, where neither of the parties concerned is likely to back off an inch. I find it frustrating, to say the least. Secondly, my ideas on the issue of the taking of a human life by another human being can be extremely unconventional: just to give you an idea, I'm against the death penalty, but I also think people who create lots of suffering and unhappiness around the world would deserve to die. I'm thinking, for instance, of those who exploit workers without giving them any security for the future, humiliating them and squeezing every drop out of them for a handful of coins, because they know they need the money. This is happening more and more in the society where I live, and when I hear the tales that some of my friends and acquaintances tell me, I can get positively homicidal. Violence takes many forms. A child murderer evokes the strongest reactions of horror and even hatred (I know, because we had a case of cold-blooded child murder in Italy only a couple of months ago) - but those owners of building sites who don't allow any security on those sites at the expense of their underpaid workers' life and health are at least potential, cold-blooded murderers as well. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 04:10
Do not get me wrong I am generally against death sentence.
But not dealing away with those cases properly (please, no pun), only gets recidivist to start again.
How do you justify these new murders victims out of your complacency?
Provided that there is a god, and since there is none ..................
IF there was one god , then he/she is an arsehole to allow such murderers to even exist, let alone allowing this acts of murder to happen.
Prove me that this god exist, and I will trial him for being the biggest murderer on this planet, simply that he does not intervene in such acts.
Just THINK about it............
 But I do believe I will stop posting on this potentially "violent" thread. We can only rip each other apart on this issue.
Peace
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 04:18
|
Faith in God, Hugues, is just that; faith, it can neither be proved right nor wrong. Nothing is explained by science or common sense when it comes to religion. People are into christianity for different reasons(I am orthodox, and if I wasn't a Christian I would be a lot more depraved than I am), and those believe in God do not demand any proof that He exists, although some are sure, whilst others _believe_.
It seems juvenile to me that you ask for proof and, on top of it all, claim God to be guilty of everything wrong happening in the world.
-- Ivan ------------- sig |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 04:24
|
Wo! Hugues, don't make this a debate about the existence of God (even though I happen to agree with you!), because this thread will run and run and get nowhere fast. As for me, well I don't agree with the death penalty, but I understand the reasons behind wanting the death penalty. I believe a jail term (and hopefully one for life - depending on the situation of course) is a better reward for the families of the victims. I'd feel happier to know someone was suffering for their crime in prison, rather than senselessly killing them and making them some sort of martyr. -------------   
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 04:25
Allow me to comment briefly on one of your remarks here, though it is quite off-topic. I don't think being religious is an antidote to depravation (whatever this word means) or just bad behaviour of any kind. I know many non-religious people (including myself, though I am more of an agnostic than a militant atheist) who are as far from being depraved as they come. I also know many so-called religious people who, if not actually depraved, are not the nicest people on earth, as well as being always ready to judge other people's behaviour. On the other hand, I am completely in agreement with you on the issue of the nature of faith. Either you have it or you haven't. It can't be either forced or eradicated. |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 04:31
this religious highjacking of the thread is safer than to reply to than the original subject of the thread
, so I will keep posting to you. If you need a "so-called god to be a good person", you should see a psychiatrist. Exactly what do you call being depraved??? What the religious biggots consider everyone else not being up to their standards???? As far as I am concerned , anyone deciding to have faith over a divinity and praying to it is complete depravity.
"Faith" allows for some of the worst possible lame-arsed acts of non-involvmen t: "this is God's will"
I say BULLCRAP!!! This is simply just to easy to claim that this world is made by god and therefore allow lame-arse not doing anything about problems, by saying that if these murders happened it is because it was "God's will".
Mankind is not all good (you shall not dispute me on that, I hope) and the only justice is mankind >>> God's justice does not exist.
I am not the one who introduced God into this debate
 , Ivan did !!!------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: JrKASperov
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 04:41
I think this thread and the general willingness to kill is enough proof that it should be abolished.
------------- Epic. |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 05:00
|
I wouldn't go as far as telling you that everything horrible that has happened happened so because of the will of God. My entire life is not based around faith or around God, but it helps. However, religious fanatics will tell you that if something horrible happens to you, if you lose someone dear to you, or if everything in the world goes wrong, it is "punishment for our sins" or "it's God testing our faith". Ironically, many people lose their faith in God immediately after something similar to things described happens.
Like I have said, I am not a fanatic and Christian idealogy isn't exacly what occupies and controls my mind. I believe in God, simply because it was thrusted on me in early childhood. If I hadn't been born in a religious family, I wouldn't be religious now, and nor would I be searching for God for that matter. However, as long my faith in God remains(it hasn't shattered yet)I have no misunderstandings within my family, as Christianity partly helps us to live in peace without any problems, and also to feel my national identity, which goes well with Orthodox Christianity that I am part of.
It is often reminded that Christianity is not always tolerant, ever since its beginning. Logically though, I take inspiration directly from the Bible itself, not historical sources about Crusaders or whatever.
I believe religion to be the perfect source of positivity for me. If you can go without it and do just fine, that's great, but speaking about myself, I think I can not. I never force my beliefs upon people, and I have never tried converting anyone to Christianity, nor do I plan to.
-- Ivan ------------- sig |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 05:09
Hay Hay
Wise words Ivan
 , please forgive my strong assertions against religion (and against you) , but it always peeves me when religious people think they have higher morals than non-religious. Nothing could be further from the truth. Anyway, I am certainly not against positivity and if it takes religion to achieve that for some people, so be it
 . TOO bad it takes some people that to be positive Peace
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 05:19
Hugues, didn't you read my previous post on the subject? I said much the same things as you have just said...  No one loves me here....  |
Posted By: imoeng
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 05:22
|
I dont really know anything about death penality history, but this is my opinion
I think there is no point in death penalty apart from "clean" him from this earth. And if the criminal has dead, he/she wont be able to suffer in this world, cause he/she just dead. Well I dont know what it is like to die, but I think its much better to let them suffer in the prison, for the rest of their life.. ------------- http://img360.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spmiw7.jpg"> 
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 05:23
Yes I did, but in the heat of the debate I answered to Ivan, wanting to make sure I clarified my opinion and being careful of not hurting him
BTW Rafaella, you are one of the most loved character on the site and yopur posts are always thoughtful and generally help soothe the heated ambiances.
So for you:
 Eeeeehmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!.........
 How 'bout them mellotrons, UH!?! ------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: goose
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 05:36
| How about life sentence with the option of suicide? |
Posted By: BebieM
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 05:40
|
I didnt' read all the posts, but the only reason that really questions
the death penalty is No.3, the killing of innocent people. EDIT: By that I don't mean that the other reasons aren't problematic, I just think they aren't logical consequences of the death penalty. If it happens to be that way, it's an issue of the particular country, not of the death penalty in general. |
Posted By: imoeng
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 05:42
|
But again the murderer won't suffer.. Again, I dont know what its like to die, but I prefer to watch them suffer in prison for the rest of his/her life.. ------------- http://img360.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spmiw7.jpg">
|
Posted By: BebieM
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 05:44
What do I get out of it though? Why not kill them, so I can be sure they won't be able to commit any further crimes? |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 05:56
|
Because each life is equal to another, regardless or whether the person has commited crime or not? What is the difference between murder and death penalty itself? If by your logic every killer should be killed, then why not kill the people who perform the death penalty? They kill too.
-- Ivan ------------- sig |
Posted By: BebieM
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 06:08
|
I'm not saying every killer should be killed. Of course the death
penalty should only be used as a punishment for extremely "bad" crimes,
which I would consider a "disqualification" for living on in our
society. There is a difference if you kill "officially", executing an order for your country, or if you kill for personal or other reasons. What do we have laws for? |
Posted By: imoeng
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 06:28
|
So why dont put the in prison for the rest or their life?? So they wont be able to kill anyone else and suffer in prison ------------- http://img360.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spmiw7.jpg">
|
Posted By: BebieM
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 06:31
|
^too expansive. And I can't see a difference between your option and killing them directly. Them suffering doesn't make me feel any better. |
Posted By: rushaholic
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 06:35
|
I have read through the posts with some amusement. I find it unbelievable that so many people support abolishing the death penalty but then again, I shouldn't be too amazed on this site because of so many "left wingers". My aunt and uncle were murdered in their home by a next door neighbor over a petty dispute. They were shot right in front of my cousins. The b*****d was locked up for 5 years and then out on probation. The reason the term was so short - he was drunk when he did it. For me, I could care less if he was drunk. I say kill them all - murderers, rapists, child molesters. You can damn sure bet that if you did and did it quick, others would think twice. Now, the system is only a joke. Some of you say that the life of the victim and the murderer are equal- I say BS! They stopped being equal when one took the life of the other. BTW, the rule of law applies here and if a law says that the life of the murderer can be taken to satisfy justice, well then, take the life. Your crazy opionions are worthless and just banter. The problem is we need stronger laws and to enforce those laws without question - rich or poor, black or white, etc. Murderers forfeit their lives the second they take another. |
Posted By: imoeng
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 06:41
|
Well personally I prefer to watch them suffer in prison than die straight away.. About the cost, I dont know exactly.. And I agree with Ivansfrost, that one life is equal to another, regardless their good or bad things they've done. So no one can take someone else's life, its God's job if you believe in God.. (damn it, its getting complicated!! ------------- http://img360.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spmiw7.jpg">
|
Posted By: imoeng
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 06:43
|
^ lol i think its too much
What I mean is people have to treat someone by not killing him/her.. To take someone else's life is not our (human)'s job. Thats what I mean.. ------------- http://img360.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spmiw7.jpg">
|
Posted By: rushaholic
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 06:44
I am sorry but it is our job to take the life - again, at least here in the U.S., the rule of law applies. |
Posted By: imoeng
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 06:46
|
^ Yeah here is too.. (btw I live in Melbourne but I talk about Indonesia)
There is a death penalty in Indonesia as well.. But I just dont 100% agree with it.. So, yeah, my point is, I prefer watch them suffer than to kill them.. ------------- http://img360.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spmiw7.jpg">
|
Posted By: Norbert
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 08:45
|
Murderers of murderers are murderers.
Simply nobody is entitled to take anyone's life.
|
Posted By: rushaholic
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 09:37
|
[QUOTE=Norbert]Murderers of murderers are murderers.
Simply nobody is entitled to take anyone's life. /QUOTE]So you say but the laws of different countries vary. You're Hungarian and your laws may be different but don't impose them on the laws of my country. Here (USA) it is legal to execture (not murder) a murderer. And rightly so! |
Posted By: Rocktopus
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 09:59
Certainly he has the right to call them murderers even if its not in his own country. When another state are murderers in way you/Americans don't approve of. You do the same thing. ------------- Over land and under ashes In the sunlight, see - it flashes Find a fly and eat his eye But don't believe in me Don't believe in me Don't believe in me |
Posted By: rushaholic
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 10:07
He can call them whatever he wants. I could care less. It still doesn't make them (the state) murderers for carrying out the orders of the court upholding the law. |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 10:08
And they do it every day, pretty much.
-- Ivan ------------- sig |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 10:10
By an alternative, but just as coherent, logic, you can forgive a poor person murdering an entire family, simply because he had nothing to eat. It makes just as much sense.
-- Ivan ------------- sig |
Posted By: NutterAlert
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 10:12
|
There has to be some way of weeding killers out of society.
We are a species that is evolving. Surely we could evolve to a state where we all get on with each other....
For a starters we could:
ban religion or get some conclusive proof that God/Allah, etc are all fiction and therefore blowing yourself to bits is not a good idea because there is no paridise waiting for you, only eternal nothingness.
ban country boundaries, so no one fights ove a bit of sh*tty land anymore
Share wealth across the World, follow what Gates/Buffett have started and plough billions into the impoverished bits of the World
Ban marriage, so there is no temptation to stab the wife
Through careful and selective processes weed out the deviants in society and either lock them away, sterilise them, or erase them. Brain patterns can be scanned from early infancy looking for signs of abnormal behaviour.
Prevent anyone who WANTS power from getting any. Produce a fair voting system using global communications to only ensure the 'nice people' get voted for any reponsibility....
Immediately eradicate anyone called Rupert Murdock, Sivlio Belusconi, Dick Chaney, Robbie Williams, George Galloway, Bin Laden as there is no hope for them in a brave new world.
Hummmm........ ------------- Proud to be an un-banned member since 2005 |
Posted By: rushaholic
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 10:13
A law is a law. Whether the man was poor and hungry and had nothing to eat and he murders a family for their food or wheter the man murdered for some other reason. A law was broken and the penalty affixed is death. Your arguement doesn't make any sense at all. |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 10:17
Great suggestions, all of them - especially the one regarding Berlusconi! Seriously, though, I don't think any of these ideas (good as they are) would be of any use in weeding killers out of society. You see, I'm rather pessimistic about human nature. Even if all those problems were eliminated for good, human beings would still find ways of hurting each other for petty reasons. See what happens in discussion boards like this - people calling each other names (sometimes in an angry, hateful way) over the subgenre of a band... |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 11:14
------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 11:26
Of course, if your not religious, you believe no justice was done. ------------- http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want! |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 11:29
precisely the point I tried to make two pages ago!
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: billbuckner
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 12:39
I guess the people who imprison murderers are kidnappers, right? |
Posted By: rushaholic
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 12:42
Yea, lets charge a man $500 for killing his neighbor and $1000 for his wife. Children - well, since they are so small, their murderer should only be fined $250. What a load of crap - you don't impose fines or slap their hands. You take away that which is most precious - life. They take life, their own life should be forfeit. |
Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 14:35
I think the issue here is not punishment, but prevention of further, similar crimes. If you think removing this individual from society is sufficient to achieve this, then it doesn't really matter whether you execute him, or lock him up forever (assuming you have fingered the right guy). But society seems to have an endless production belt of such people - murderers, rapists, child molesters - whatever is your personal bete noire - and unless you - we - interrupt this production line, then it matters not a jot what you do to the individuals who get caught.
Naturally, there will be great differences of opinion as to how we prevent such people being created. Personally, I believe very strongly that a society which calls for vengeance and death as a response to these (yes; awful) crimes is one that doesn't understand the nature of the problem. I also think that recourse to religious dogma in attempting to solve the problem is a big mistake, since this is not freely malleable by rational argument, by cause & effect.
Of course I would not dream of arguing that we could fix society so perfectly as to eliminate totally the emergence of such bad people (I am deliberately trying to avoid the word "evil", which has I think misleading connotations). We should still punish the criminal. But there seems to be no interest on the part of governments either side of the Atlantic to address the real reasons behind the continuous production of criminals by society. ------------- "Every man over forty is a scoundrel." GBS 
|
Posted By: Zadok
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 14:52
|
Personally, I'm against it. We don't have the death penalty in England, and we're managing fine. It achieves nothing.
Crimson Thing, well said.
|
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 14:53
|
I've got two questions to those of you who are for death penalty:
1. When executing a criminal you're killing somebody's son/brother/husband/father. What has his mother/brother/wife/son done wrong that you want to kill one of their dearest? Remember Timothy McVeigh - his parrents didn't throw him away. They still loved him! 2. Suppose that your son has commited an abhorrent crime. Would you want him to be executed? ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: Forgotten Son
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 14:59
| The Criminal Justice System shouldn't be influenced by base human emotions such as rage and hatred and such emotions are, as I see it, the only reason why people support the death penalty. |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 15:07
I concur! ------------- "Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent." Charles Bukowski |
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 15:09
|
Posted By: The Hemulen
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 15:11
| Call me simplistic in my views but I don't believe any state or organisation has the right to kill a human being, no matter how many people that man has killed. The death penalty just adds another murder to the list. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 15:17
|
Is it right to say that those who are pro-death penalty, are also themselves likely of killing a human themselves? That's not a personal view, just a question. -------------
|
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 15:29
|
There's also the small matter of those who have been executed in the past, then found to be not guilty - followed by those cases where "murderers" (who in the past, would have faced execution) are sentenced to life imprisonment, only to be released at a later date, due to the original conviction being overturned following case review. How many innocent lives curtailed by state sponsored execution are considered 'justified'?
Believe me, I fully understand the standpoint of those who wish for convicted murderers to be executed; I am just very uncomfortable with past statistics involving wrongful arrest & imprisonment. If there are any who would argue the occasional execution of an innocent is justified as a natural by-process of state sanctioned capital punishment, they would do well to remember there have been precedents in the past of States where a group of people (mostly innocent, but known to contain an offender) would be executed to ensure the death of a guilty party; the three most famous of these States were led by messrs Hitler, Stalin & Amin - extreme examples, maybe, but an extension nonetheless of the same argument. Sorry, I wasn't going to get involved - I'll go away now & allow myself to be lambasted by both sides to putting forward a weak argument... -------------
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012 |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 15:52
 It actually costs more to execute someone than it does to lock them up for life (mandatory appeals, etc). State execution is a very lengthy, very expensive legal process.From what I've read on the subject, Jody, economic pro-death penalty arguments are a non-starter.
(And of course, grotesque murders happen outside the US as well.)
I once met a detective who played a lead role in incarcerating one of Canada's most nortorious killers, Paul Bernardo. I talked with him extensively, and this experienced and well-educated cop said that death would have been "too easy" for Bernardo, and that prison (for life -- no parole) was "the best place for him."
These murdering animals get off on control (even over other's lives & deaths) -- they can't control anyone or anything in prison. ------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: VanderGraafKommandöh
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 15:54
|
Yes Jim, a friend of mine has had a personal agenda when it comes down to the fact whether someone is guilty or not. I won't go into details, but basically a person is in prison for murder, yet no body has ever been found and the person is still officially "missing". The evidence is very thin on the ground, yet they still have a life sentence. I don't know the person officially, but they could easily be innocent. There simply is not enough evidence either way, yet still they sit inside a prison cell. Do they deserve to be executed? No. -------------
|
Posted By: Raff
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 15:58
|
From my personal point of view, I think that being deprived of freedom for the rest of my life would be the proverbial fate worse than death. We tend to take our freedom for granted, and chafe at the bit if we cannot go on holiday when we would like to because of work - can you imagine never, ever being allowed to get out of a prison building until the end of your life? And, Peter, this is exactly what I've heard about the cost of executing somebody. And then, unless a criminal is done away with right away, keeping him or her for years in death row will certainly not save the taxpayers' money. |
Posted By: cuncuna
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 16:06
|
If someone does something really bad to any of the people I love, I know I won't be in peace until killing the responsable. If someone, for example, murder my brother, then live sentence is not good enough for me. Watch the news; here, in Chile, people is actually starting to beat common criminals on the streets. We just don't care anymore; if someone does not respect human rights, then that person is not entitled to have his own human rights. ------------- ¡Beware of the Bee! |
Posted By: Peter
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 16:11
|
Like all such subjects, this is very complex, and leads directly into emotional, core values territory.
Religion, race, economic factors, history, psycholgy, etc are all major factors in the debate.
Those countries, like Canada (and, to my knowledge, perhaps all European countries) that have abolished the death penalty hardly did so overnight, and years and years of legal thought, psychological & statistical analysis, etc, (often by people smarter and more experienced than me, you or the other armchair "experts" here) went into those countries' decisions to abolish capital punishment.
Like all very complex subjects (such as strife in the Middle East, Ireland, etc), the issue of capital punishment defiies "easy" resolution, and deserves very careful consideration. Beware of knee-jerk, "off the cuff" emotional responses!
Finally, you will NEVER attain 100% accord from any given population on such issues.
(You might as well argue about religion -- or the meaning of "progressive" in music! )------------- "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
Posted By: rushaholic
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 16:21
The state does have the right when the people give the state that right. In the U.S. and in other countries, that right has been given. It doesn't matter what you believe or what anyone else believes. Countries are governed by the rule of law (most are) and if a law says that a murderer should die for his crimes, then execute him. It is not another murder. |
Posted By: JrKASperov
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 16:33
Yeah if the law says that jews should be eradicated from this face of the planet, it's not murder either. 
------------- Epic. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 21:34
|
This is a very controversial issue and all opinions are valid, but each one is ebtitled to their own and the Governments are allowed to make the laws and enforce them as they believe it's better for the country if the Congress (Elected by people) decides so. I live in the civilized Perú, there's no death penalty, punishments are very soft, you may get 5 or less years for killing somebody, and the law in this case is not for the rich, the poor people almost always gets the softer penalty because our genius consider that they are handicapped and for that reason should receive softer treatment. I captured with the help of some private guards of a minister who lived near my house a criminal that broke my fence tried to stab my father (Who was 70 at that time), the guy was being searched for kidnapping and drug traffic, even when I'm a lawyer and helped the prosecution the judge gave him 2 years in conditional liberty. Many dangerous criminals were sent to "EL SEPA" a penal colony in the jungle where there was no way to escape unledss you wanted to run through the jungle...Amnesty International accused us of making them work to gain their food and because it was too hot. Then we created "Yanacmayo" in Puno, 3,800 Mts over sea level, where it was impossible to escape because it was in the center of a plain where nobody could get in or out without being seen 10 miles around....Amnesty International decided it was inhuman because it was too cold. They didn't cared that a few years ago in "EL SEXTO" in the middle of the city, this poor innocent victims of society started a riot that can be described by a Canadian prissoner accudsed of drug dealing: Warning; The description is vivid and cruel.
What this prisoner couldn't see is that all Perú (And the world) watched on TV how a prisoner was stabbed, burn alive and thrown from a tower opf the prison and that some guards were killed. Amnesty International said NOTHING because Lima is warm, yes, EL SEXTO was crowded, but we're a poor country that can't feed all the people, why should we waste our money in this scum? People live next door to that prison, can you imagine how frightened they were? But who cares for them if the criminals are healthy and fat. Do you believe this people can be redemed??????? Why in hell does Amnesty International cares more for the criminals than for the victims? This is only the tip of the iceberg. Sorry, but all this people can't be saved, society would be better without a big group of them. BTW: I'm Catholic and believe in God, but neither my religion or me consider death penalty is against God's will, our Church considers it valid in some cases butt leaves freedom to the people to take position
Some priests are against, some are not, we have free wil to take position.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: WaywardSon
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 22:00
|
I think people have to ask themselves..How would I feel if my wife, sister or anyone in my family were raped and killed?
Sure they go to prison, but they are often out in 5 to 20 years to do the same thing to someone else. What does society do with people who don´t fit in and cause harm to innocent people?
What is the percentage of people who are wrongly convicted?
What is the percentage of people who will be harmed or suffer once this person is released from prison?
I´m for the death penalty.
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 22:09
Just imagine what could have happened if one of this gangs from the Peruvian prison had escaped as they tried and how many people would have suffered.
BTW: All of them must be out since 1990 more or less (And most surely in again) because the Courts give short penalties to this guys.
Iván
-------------
|
Posted By: Asyte2c00
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 22:19
| This may see immature, however, I believe we could put culprits to better use than giving them the death penalty. We should give them jobs no one else wants to take but are essential to the livlihood of a nation. |
Posted By: The Lost Chord
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 22:22
|
ofcourse, not being realistic here, but i wish all criminals could just be tortured and burned or something horribly viscious like that. Depending on the crime, ofcourse. -------------  "Only the sun knew why"
|
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 22:45
We tried Asyte, EL CEPA was a Penal Colony in the middle of nowhere in the jungle, medicines were provided but the highly dangerous criminals (The only ones sent there), had to work for their food making roads or developing farms for other people to colonize this zone.
It was impossible to escape because in the jungle you have nowhere to go, it was hot as hell but an Austrian - German community made in 1858 their town in a similar zone now called Pozuzo and look at the paradise they created:
  The idea was to help develop cities like this with the prisoners doing something useful. But again Civil Right watchers said that it was too hot and that prisoners should not be forced to work for food.
But we are forced to pay more taxes to feed them.
 Iván -------------
|
Posted By: pepo
Date Posted: July 04 2006 at 23:19
| I think it's relatively easy to support non lethal punishments when a relative or friend of yours has never been victim. However you'll ask for death penalty if one of them is injured somehow, even if the fault is not that serious. On the other hand, death penalty is not a very effective mechanism of deterrence at least in the U.S. where some people seem to kill for fun. In Peru there's only death penalty for traitors and spies , if I don't mistake, which is sort of international standard. Judging by the last news, I'm starting to think that death penalty wont be a very bad idea after all since the penal system here in Peru is ever worsening. Ranked kidnappers are effectively capturad and released within hours. Prisons have so much security leakages due to corruption that I don't think it would be very hard to take them over by the criminals kept there. Well, the list goes on but the point is that although it's a very complicated issue it must be settled somehow for the future of my country and the whole world might be defined over such decision. And concerning international amnesty, isn't killing and raping a worse kind of torture than reclusion in the aforementioned penal facilities, I mean any past century soviet gulag prisoner would have loved to be there instead of Siberia. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 05 2006 at 00:19
Not exact but close, in Perú there's death penalty for traitors (Not spies) just in case of declared external war (In other words there is virtually no death penalty, being that the last declared war was against Nazi Germany in 1942 if I'm not wrong.
The two wars agaisnt Ecuadir were not officialy declared.
The Constitution was modified in 1993 to allow an extra case:
The bolds part is the original text, it was adopted before we signed the San José Treaty about Human rights and we agreed not to add new crimes that could be punished with Death Penalty.
The people accepted the modification of the second part (Including Terrorism) by REFERENDUM that reached more than 53% of votes in favour, so legally we were entitled to denounce the treaty with the votes of 2/3 of the Congress, but this never happened because all the Human Rights good for nothing institutions made a scandal.
Iván -------------
|
Posted By: pepo
Date Posted: July 05 2006 at 00:58
Got it, thanks for the correction. Seems like we're one of the most indulgent countries worldwide and perhaps that's the reason why every b*****d that has come to rule has betrayed the whole nation with total impunity. |
Posted By: Ivan_Melgar_M
Date Posted: July 05 2006 at 02:45
Hey Pepo, I'm also Peruvian, so I'm aware.
The problem is that all betray us and we vote again for them.
Iván
En el dolor hermanos...pero en el dolor de haber tenido que votar por Alan.  -------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 05 2006 at 03:03
|
I didn’t mean to imply that you are in anyway cowardly. I was simply saying that the argument has merit despite it seemingly accomplishing nothing.
I wasn’t offering the child offender being beaten to death as a solution to any problem. I made no point with it; its inclusion was mostly to make a comment about how even murderers seem to have their standards. How do I justify these new murders? Unfortunate casualties resulting from the attempt to save many men’s lives. Would God be the bigger asshole for not stopping a murder, or for taking away the man’s ability to murder? I argue that the greater sin would be the latter.
First off let me say I’m sorry for the death of your loved ones. Let’s hope they’ve found peace. Now that I’ve said that, you should really not let personal passions get in the way of your judging of a situation. Our “crazy opinions” are far from useless, I’m not disputing the constitution of the USA allowing for the death penalty, I’m instead arguing its morality and usefulness as a social institution. You’re living in the wrong country to believe in such a philosophy of opinions being useless banter. Also don’t call me a left winger simply because I’m against murder. I’m a registered republican, large supporter of Reagan economics, the free market, and am probably among the most conservative members of the forum. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: July 05 2006 at 04:34
Congrats, you've mutilated and distorted the thought. I never even intended to mean anything remotely close to that.
Fines are fines, I never said about them being used in case of murder. Obviously, sending to prison is the only way, to my mind, that should be used in case of murder, no matter how brutal. What do you call the period of time person spends in prison for his entire life? I am quite fluent in English, but such little nuances are unknown to me.
-- Ivan ------------- sig |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: July 05 2006 at 04:41
Well, killing a man is sin. How you do it does not matter towards the face of God. There also is not any difference between murdering a murderer because the law tells you to, or to murder because you are hungry and poor. Actually, on the other hand, what is more moral - to kill because of a need, when your mind no longer works properly, or just because it is your job - to murder murderers? Nice job, by the way. It's also a sign of US's development that hangmen are used in... the 21st century.
I do not deny there being various contradictions in Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, but the US law contradicts both common sense and Christianity, and also moral. And since when is law such a strong aspect to follow it blindly?
-- Ivan ------------- sig |
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: July 05 2006 at 05:09
------------- let's just stay above the moral melee prefer the sink to the gutter keep our sand-castle virtues content to be a doer as well as a thinker, prefer lifting our pen rather than un-sheath our sword |
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: July 05 2006 at 14:03
I'm sorry Ivan I didn't mean to jump in on your arguement. I'm just home, bored, and outraged. ------------- "One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. " |
Posted By: Trickster F.
Date Posted: July 05 2006 at 14:30
Actually, thanks for doing it, I as hell did not want to respond to that(nor did I want to respond to anything posted in my address after my initial response).
-- Ivan ------------- sig |
Posted By: Zadok
Date Posted: July 05 2006 at 14:44
Ridiculous argument. Most people would feel the same way about the criminal in question if they were, say, robbed as well. You can't start killing people because they don't fit into your view of what society should be like.
If it saves one person from being executed for a crime that he did not commit, then abolishing the death penalty would be worthwhile.
|