Do you agree with the death penalty ?

[Lamp]

It may not act as a deterrent but it sends out a clear message. If you murder, rape, or fiddle with kids you WILL get the death penalty. It has the effect of permanently removing these people from society.

See how far you get with your delusions of morality when you insist to the parents of a raped and murdered infant that it would be wrong to give him the death penalty. Many will not want any more life taken, I can accept that. But deep down inside - ask any father what he'd like to do to the scumbag with 10 minutes and a hunting knife.

All child rapists and murderers should be given the death penalty.

Thats my stance.

 

[Raven]

just give them a cuddle and a holiday, that will teach them!

 

[noblok]

It may not act as a deterrent but it sends out a clear message. If you murder, rape, or fiddle with kids you WILL get the death penalty.

Which is what I said: it sends the clear message that (a) sometimes murder is OK and (b) revenge is a solid basis for morality.

It has the effect of permanently removing these people from society.

So has lifelong imprisonment.

 

[confused]

I always thought that a sentence is always meant to be a punishment. In my eyes sometimes death is not as much of a punishment as a lifetime in prison. Showing myself to be against the death penalty.

 

[Bugz]

My view is that anyone evil in the world should be killed through whatever means possible

 

[Raven]

So has lifelong imprisonment.

at a huge cost, what is the point of keeping someone in prison for 50 years? In the case of rapists and peados keep them safe from the other prisoners too. Anyone who preys on children or rapes someone does not deserve to live. There is no cure for rape and there is no cure for a person who has been subject to child abuse. What better way to stop it than saying if we catch you doing it you will die Another option is to have their crime tattooed onto their forehead and putting them into the normal prison population, a bit of real fear and suffering will sort them right out.

 

[Tasslehoff]

My view is that anyone evil in the world should be killed through whatever means possible

Tongue-in-cheek I suppose?

 

[Bugz]

Tongue-in-cheek I suppose?

Oh no.

That's my firm belief

 

[Tasslehoff]

Also, a lot of these things come down to morale, which are generally something you get through your childhood, environment etc.
If you do not rape women on the street, because you're afraid of the death penalty, is it a good system then?
If you do not rape women on the street, because your morals tells you that it's wrong, is it then a good system?

I know what I'd prefer, and what would be a good society to live in.

EDIT: Bugz, you never know, I've been surprised before by people on forums

 

[kivik]

So has lifelong imprisonment.

Difference is (atleast in sweden) 'lifelong imprisonment' is 4-10 years, and if you cuddle with the guards and give them flowers you're out in 1-5 years.

 

[confused]

I've been saying it for years, murder 1, should serve a minimum sentence of 30 years, not the maximum

 

[old.Tohtori]

I'd just like to add to the discussion that thousands of people are found guilty in the US alone, every month, when infact they are 100% innocent.

How about killing those?

Surely atleast 1/10 of those are murder/rape/molest cases. That's easily 3 maybe 4 thousands people in the furnace, for doing nothing,

If you think death penalty is "ok in some cases", then that case should be airtight, 100% sure without a hint of doubt.

 

[Ezteq]

My view is that anyone evil in the world should be killed through whatever means possible

hay dude, what i ever do to you???

thanks a bunch man


*hides from bugz*


now then, whats the topic? ah yes. death penality yes but only if you know 100% the person is guilty (i.e. caught in the act, taking pot shots at people from a tower and have them on tape etc) and then do it quickly and painlessly, your killing them that imo is punishment enough if you go for the whole "torture the bastard" thing your opening a whole new can of worms.

some people can not be rehabilitated and tbh if theyve murdered someone for no good reason (that woman whos daughter was raped and they let the guy out so she set fire to him? tbh she had a good reason) they are dangerous and should be eliminated, whether they killed a child or an adult i find a moot point a person is a person and killing an innocent person aint on. same for serial sex attackers, dont bother to imprison them they wont learn anything and even if they are sorry the damage is done whether they sexually assult adults or children if they are serial then terminate them.

this is my personal belief, its not something i would fight over because its not something i ever expect to happen but if it did become law i would be pleased. I'm sick of people raping and murdering and being allowed to breathe the same god damned air as me.

 

[Jeremiah]

For the life of me I can't see why it's for the good of the many. It doesn't work as a deterrent and it has no significant advantage in safeguarding society. It does however create a moral climate where people think that murder is OK in some cases and it supports the idea that revenge is a good basis for morality, which is in my opinion not to the advantage of the many./QUOTE]

I think its wrong to say it doesnt work (as an absolute), its maybe better to say it doesnt always work. Theres evidence to show it does work in some cases (like countries under Shariah law) but in such societies there is a lack of personal freedom that we enjoy. I dont think it would work in our society, and I think the US highlights that.

But I cant believe anyone would use Capital Punishment to justify any kind of murder. Using the same reasoning, we could say sending people to jail creates a society where we think its ok for us to personally imprision people who wrong us. Do we not give up our own right to any kind of revenge because we believe in our judicial system carrying out justice on our behalf?

And does the judicial system not work towards the good of society? Surely then any punishment handed out by the system is for the good of society, and if they use capital punishment then it must be for the good of society.

I'm really torn on this issue tho. While I believe we are entitiled to justice (deemed suitable by our system) I also believe people have the capacity to change.

 

[Tasslehoff]

And does the judicial system not work towards the good of society? Surely then any punishment handed out by the system is for the good of society, and if they use capital punishment then it must be for the good of society.

Wrong. Just because the judicial system works towards the good of society, it does not mean that anything done by them is for the good of the society.

To give an example, if someone innocent was sentenced to death through the judicial system, the system in itself would still work towards the good of society, but the act done towards the innocent would not be for the good of society.

 

[Jeremiah]

Wrong. Just because the judicial system works towards the good of society, it does not mean that anything done by them is for the good of the society.

To give an example, if someone innocent was sentenced to death through the judicial system, the system in itself would still work towards the good of society, but the act done towards the innocent would not be for the good of society.

The system would be making judgements with as much of the information that they can, or at least they should be. I dont disagree that there has been cases of innocent people being judged as guilty, but that doesnt change that the system works for the good of society.

Its horrible to think that a few innocent punishments (death or otherwise) is almost seen as collateral damage so to speak, but our judicial system needs to be absolute or nothing (in terms of carrying out punishments). Maybe what we should then ask is "Is the injustice of a few worth the correct justice of the many?". I think this is too hard a question to answer. Who has the right to sentence an innocent person?

 

[yaruar]

The system would be making judgements with as much of the information that they can, or at least they should be. I dont disagree that there has been cases of innocent people being judged as guilty, but that doesnt change that the system works for the good of society.

Its horrible to think that a few innocent punishments (death or otherwise) is almost seen as collateral damage so to speak, but our judicial system needs to be absolute or nothing (in terms of carrying out punishments). Maybe what we should then ask is "Is the injustice of a few worth the correct justice of the many?". I think this is too hard a question to answer. Who has the right to sentence an innocent person?

There is a problem with that way of thinking though..

One could argue that the best way to cut the crime rate by half would be to kill half the population at birth. In fact if you targetted poor areas you would in fact cut the crime rate by more than half which would mean a net gain by removing potential criminals before they acted. Seems like a good plan to me.

Justice should never be blind and it should never be absolute, because it is not a machine it is a flawed system created by flawed individuals, carried out by flawed individuals on flawed individuals. It isn't software debugging it is a human solution to a human problem.

 

[noblok]

at a huge cost, what is the point of keeping someone in prison for 50 years? In the case of rapists and peados keep them safe from the other prisoners too. Anyone who preys on children or rapes someone does not deserve to live.

Yeah, let's put a price on human life. That's a good idea. Apart from that, Chronictank proposed an idea where they don't cost any money, so this argument doesn't really hold. Well, the "they don't deserve to live" part still holds, but that's just an emotional, vengance-based argument which I don't accept. I believe at least some level of reason is needed in morality.

There is no cure for rape and there is no cure for a person who has been subject to child abuse. What better way to stop it than saying if we catch you doing it you will die Another option is to have their crime tattooed onto their forehead and putting them into the normal prison population, a bit of real fear and suffering will sort them right out.

Basically everything would work just as well since capital punishment does not work as a deterrent. I guess better assistance to people who were subject of child abuse would be a good start though as often abusers were abused themselves.

Difference is (atleast in sweden) 'lifelong imprisonment' is 4-10 years, and if you cuddle with the guards and give them flowers you're out in 1-5 years.

Nobody said it's a choice between either the current system or capital punishment. There is also the alternative of keeping people in prison until they no longer pose a threat, be that until they've recovered or untill they die.

I think its wrong to say it doesnt work (as an absolute), its maybe better to say it doesnt always work. Theres evidence to show it does work in some cases (like countries under Shariah law) but in such societies there is a lack of personal freedom that we enjoy. I dont think it would work in our society, and I think the US highlights that.

I've never heard about capital punishment actually working as a deterrent, so excuse my scepticism, but was this corroborated by reliable statistical evidence? Did the crime-rates in Afghanistan drop significantly after the shariah was introduced? If so, I'd still doubt the reliability of these statistics. There might just be less people going to court because you're required to have 50 male witnesses for the rape to be proven (I'm sure there was an article about a similar law some time ago). I also don't trust a direct comparison of crime-rates, because so many more factors than the punishment play a role (social environment e.a.).

But I cant believe anyone would use Capital Punishment to justify any kind of murder. Using the same reasoning, we could say sending people to jail creates a society where we think its ok for us to personally imprision people who wrong us. Do we not give up our own right to any kind of revenge because we believe in our judicial system carrying out justice on our behalf?

This is a bit different, because imprisonment hasn't got quite the same moral status as murder. Murder is about the worst you can do to someone. Because it is, I think it shouldn't be allowed ever. Life and death have a very strong symbolic connotation, they are moral taboos. I consider this a good thing. If murder becomes just another kind of punishment it will lose this special status. Also, imprisonment is a rather humane punishment and as such it promotes a climate of humanity. Murder is not a humane punishment (human perhaps, but not humane).

And does the judicial system not work towards the good of society? Surely then any punishment handed out by the system is for the good of society, and if they use capital punishment then it must be for the good of society.

But they don't use capital punishment (in most countries), so according to your logic capital punishment isn't for the good of society. This implies that being against capital punishment means you pay more importance to the good of society .

 

[Lamp]

So has lifelong imprisonment.

In the UK "life imprisonment" rarely is applied. It SHOULD mean "in prison until you die".

 

[Jeremiah]

There is a problem with that way of thinking though..

One could argue that the best way to cut the crime rate by half would be to kill half the population at birth. In fact if you targetted poor areas you would in fact cut the crime rate by more than half which would mean a net gain by removing potential criminals before they acted. Seems like a good plan to me.

Justice should never be blind and it should never be absolute, because it is not a machine it is a flawed system created by flawed individuals, carried out by flawed individuals on flawed individuals. It isn't software debugging it is a human solution to a human problem.

I think our systems definition of jury verdicts is satisfactory, and this is what I meant about absoulte - that once a verdict has been passed then the person is then considered guilty until proven innocent, rather than "Well, we know that the jury has returned a guilty verdict, but since no one actually watched you murder, then we'll give you the benifit of doubt".

But I agree it will always be flawed since we are flawed, and its really suffering just now since we live in an age of increasing "personal morals". I'm not looking forward to how it will be in 20 years time =(

 

[Calaen]

I condsider the raping of a children more distrubing than murdering someone, a murder can be commited in self defence and obviously there are laws to take care of this, however a child cannot just fall onto the penis of its attacker by accident.

 

[Jeremiah]

I've never heard about capital punishment actually working as a deterrent, so excuse my scepticism, but was this corroborated by reliable statistical evidence? Did the crime-rates in Afghanistan drop significantly after the shariah was introduced? If so, I'd still doubt the reliability of these statistics. There might just be less people going to court because you're required to have 50 male witnesses for the rape to be proven (I'm sure there was an article about a similar law some time ago). I also don't trust a direct comparison of crime-rates, because so many more factors than the punishment play a role (social environment e.a.).

I understand what you are saying, but how can anyone now prove this to you, since you would disregard direct comparisions, and question the reliabilities of any statistics? Yes some of the rules of Islamic law are deeply unfair (such as the 4 witnesses for a complaint of rape) but they created a culture of respect where fear was the deterent. Even from a philosopical point of view, surely you can see a relationship between the amount of crime in society and the amount of freedom enjoyed by that society?

This is a bit different, because imprisonment hasn't got quite the same moral status as murder. Murder is about the worst you can do to someone. Because it is, I think it shouldn't be allowed ever. Life and death have a very strong symbolic connotation, they are moral taboos. I consider this a good thing. If murder becomes just another kind of punishment it will lose this special status. Also, imprisonment is a rather humane punishment and as such it promotes a climate of humanity. Murder is not a humane punishment (human perhaps, but not humane).

Of course murder is intrisically morally wrong, but my point was directed to your belief that capital punishment creates a society where murder is more acceptable. I think I wouldnt see CP as murder, so we obviously differ here =)

But they don't use capital punishment (in most countries), so according to your logic capital punishment isn't for the good of society. This implies that being against capital punishment means you pay more importance to the good of society .

You are right, I dont believe its good for our society. What I meant was that I dont believe we can simply say "It is not good for any society", but again thats probably because we differ on whether CP is murder or not. But its ok to differ =)

 

[old.Tohtori]

I condsider the raping of a children more distrubing than murdering someone, a murder can be commited in self defence and obviously there are laws to take care of this, however a child cannot just fall onto the penis of its attacker by accident.

There are on the other hand, people going to prisons with alleged rape charges. Just a fact, thousands people a year go to jail beucase of sex crimes they did not do. On proven cases, without a doubt, i agree with you.

The "collateral innocents" is, in all fairnes, a thing about justice that has to be taken. But when in the states, around 10.000 people a month go to jail innocent...well...sometimes enough is enough don't you think?

 

[Rookiescot]

Im sorry ..... but I would far rather see 100,000 guys spend the rest of their lives in jail than see 1 innocent man hanged.

So no ... I do not agree with the death penalty.

Unless of course its the bastard who broke into my house while I was at work. I would like to see that shit burned at the stake.

Only kidding

I'll get that git myself

 

[liloe]

Lazyness rox =)

No, I'll always be against the death penalty, even if rapists deserve to get their balls chopped off with a rusty kitchen knife. But you might always catch a wrong one, so permanent harm is a big no.

Imho jails should be changed though, from carebare-land to real jail, where the prisoners do something to repay all the shit they've done to the public. Could use them as cheap workers to repair roads or similar stuff that benefits the state as whole.

 

[noblok]

I understand what you are saying, but how can anyone now prove this to you, since you would disregard direct comparisions, and question the reliabilities of any statistics? Yes some of the rules of Islamic law are deeply unfair (such as the 4 witnesses for a complaint of rape) but they created a culture of respect where fear was the deterent. Even from a philosopical point of view, surely you can see a relationship between the amount of crime in society and the amount of freedom enjoyed by that society?

I'll accept researches which take these factors into account, even if only be aproximate numbers. I'm also not asking you to post a link, I'll take your word for it if you say your claim is supported by such researches. It's just that google (although I only skimmed 4 reseraches) as well as at university (although I study philosophy, so it isn't my main field of study) have always said/taught me that capital punishment doesn't work as a deterrent, which is why I'm sceptical.

Of course murder is intrisically morally wrong, but my point was directed to your belief that capital punishment creates a society where murder is more acceptable. I think I wouldnt see CP as murder, so we obviously differ here =)

What is it then if not murder? I can see how euthanasia e.g. doesn't promote murder, because here the accent is on helping someone, but with capital punishment the accent lies on revenge. With imprisonment there is also a dimension of helping (reformation). As such institutionalising capital punishment creates a moral climate where vengeance is considered a good thing and murder can be justified, while imprisonment promotes a climate of forgiveness and humanity.

For the same reasons I would object to e.g. rape being an institutionalised form of punishment (in response to Calaen).

 

[Bahumat]

All i know is when someone puts Bovril on my toast instead of Marmite, they deserve to be shot!

 

[Iapegioh]

Whilst in prison we need to exploit these criminals and not let them rot away without any use to society. Make them rebuild roads etc as one other person suggested.

 

[Levin]

Noblok is saying everything I feel about this. Rep incoming.

EDIT: Gah! Must spread rep .