The Capital Punishment

[Fallen Angel]

Please don't fuck my thread up with stupid as pics.

You WILL show Master Yoda the proper respect.

[Liquid Blue]

A few things before I get back on topic. No more quote, paragraph of text, quote, next paragraph, etc, because it's not sinking in.

- Your first post was blatantly condescending and anti-american

- Talking bad about America isn't "going against the grain" on these forums, which half the reason I responded to your inane assumptions.

-Despite all your flower talk about philosphy and the highest form of living one can take, not only are you not doing the same (I've said before you can do so much more to help your country), but you're also trying to make others feel ashamed in regards to things you have no experience on. Your country is different from my country, stick with the blame game over wherever you are.

- I know the insult was a hot thing for you to focus on, lord knows you've said the word more times than needed, but you need to expect negative reactions when you post negative things. If you don't want to believe what you said was in a negative tone, fine, call me a fucktard and move on, there's really no getting through to you.


I'm glad to see that you realize we won't see eye to eye, and want to get back on topic.


---

Death penalty is less of a penalty than prison for life, if you do not think so.. torturing for life would be an option.

What about terrorists who blow themselfs up and take 100 man with them? They don't care about their selves but only about their actions, make them care about theirselves, and make them feel sad about theirselves if thats what they desirve.

I see Death Penalty as an easy way out for criminals, they don't care.

Well that's kind of an extreme to use as an example. Terrorists and suicide bombers don't hold any value to their life, other than promoting their cause. Alot of common criminals cherish their lives very much. It's not that I see the death penalty as quicker form of punishment (meaning they don't have to live in prison or go through torture), I just disagree with the death penalty due to innocent people dying because of it.

Someone with less than 100% proof that they are guilty should not even be considered for the death penalty, yes even mass murderers. For the sick fucks that rape little boys and chop up their remains and stick them in freezers or whatever nasty thing they are into, a quick death doesn't seem like enough of a punishment for me. I would prefer that they just have life without any chance of parole.

[geekbot]

All of a sudden there was a lot of posts and I stopped reading.

Galleleo, another thought-

Punishment is a deterrent. If one bad guy receives capital punishment and that makes bad guy #2 think twice about going on a killing spree, is that a good thing? You can't predict the future, but you can say things like- the murder rate has gone down/up since we have had the death penalty.

BTW, I'm not for or against. I think capital punishment is just, but we could do without it.

[Galleleo]

Geek:

Some studies have shown a negative correlation between the death penalty and murder rates. This statistical "correlation" means that either the death penalty increase murder rates (for example, by brutalising the society) or higher murder rates cause the state to retain or reintroduce the death penalty. It is not possible for statistical research on murder rate to prove or disprove that capital punishment deters potential murderers or terrorists because such studies would only demonstrate correlation not causation.

[Facetious]

i skimmed what both of you wrote, and sorry, arikel, from the first set of posts you put up there i definitely got the impression that you expect all americans to be held accountable for everything our government does, and as a result, we should be ashamed of ourselves. not only is that ridiculous, but its extremely anti-american. not only anti-american, but anti-me-as-an american. getting off topic and telling lb he shouldnt be insulting you wasnt helping your case. if you werent intending to bash our country with your post, how come you didnt apologize for the misunderstanding when pretty much every american in this thread seemed to think that your post was doing so?

[K2Grey]

Some of the arguments on this thread are pretty bizzarre, such as "since there are governments with a history of human rights abuses that have the death penalty, if the US has a death penalty, that means that they are of equivalent ethical nature", which seems very strange to me and I believe such an argument is termed an argument by association and is a logical fallacy (but correct me if I got the technicalities wrong).

IMHO, the main question here is, what is the purpose of a sentence? Is it to punish the person, or is it to keep society safe from them? In the case of severe crimes, where the death penalty is most commonly used, I think it is the latter, and since one who is later found to be innocent can be released from life imprisonment, but one who is dead cannot be resurrected, I'm inclined to go against the death penalty.

Someone rebut this please since I'm sure this issue isn't as simple as I just made it seem.

[Arikel]

Some of the arguments on this thread are pretty bizzarre, such as "since there are governments with a history of human rights abuses that have the death penalty, if the US has a death penalty, that means that they are of equivalent ethical nature", which seems very strange to me and I believe such an argument is termed an argument by association and is a logical fallacy (but correct me if I got the technicalities wrong).

IMHO, the main question here is, what is the purpose of a sentence? Is it to punish the person, or is it to keep society safe from them? In the case of severe crimes, where the death penalty is most commonly used, I think it is the latter, and since one who is later found to be innocent can be released from life imprisonment, but one who is dead cannot be resurrected, I'm inclined to go against the death penalty.

Someone rebut this please since I'm sure this issue isn't as simple as I just made it seem.

In my opinion the main porpuse is not to punish the person or to keep society safe from that person, the main purpose is to rehabilitate the person so that that person doesn't repeat the same acts against society, punishment is also a part of it as it is the imprisonment in order to keep society safe from someone with a behaviour that might endenger the persons. So yes that's probably the main reason for me to be against the death penalty although it's not the only one.

[RATTY...]

That first part doesn't even make sense. Why would you sentence someone to Life and have them stay for only 21 years. What if they were sentenced for 22 years?

In Norway, if you run in the city with a flamethrower killing 50 people, you will get 21 years of prison.

After -21 years of prison, you can do the same if you feel like and get another 21, if they can prove that you're mentally ill and can't be cured, you will be locked inside forever, if not, you're out after -21 years and can do the same shit again.

That's our lifetime, you can't get 22 years.

The last case that I found disturbing was when a jelaous guy raped his gf in her own house, and killed her afterwards, he got 13 years, he should've been fucking killed.

[Galleleo]

It's also to punish.. not only to rehabilitate, when you did something you weren't supposed to do as a kid, and you had to go to your room, it was punishment, and, the prospect of another one of those punishment should then keep you from doing it again. Your parents didn't come up to your room to help you rehabilitate.

Same as you the judge confines you to probational sentences, or gives you a money sentence. It's punishment, same as prison, only prison is also an institute for re-education.

[Sarien]

Remember Tookie, a murderer in cold blood that after being in jail and showing regret he changed is life completely, Becoming a children books writter and being the nominee for 4 consecutive years for the nobel prize, did your judicial system backed in the decision? No! Tookie is dead even though he was a diferent men then he was when he got arrested.

I wonder how the four people he killed with a shotgun would feel about him being a children's book writer, and a nominee for a nobel prize? It's a shame that we can't ask them, isn't it?

I didn't read most of what you had to write, I'll freely admit that. Not because I think you're an America basher. Not because I'm some jingoistic clown that believes my government can do no wrong. I didn't read it because you dared to write the above paragraph, and then call someone else a pathetic little brat. I think trying to excuse his behavior by saying "he's different now, he writes kid's books!", is pretty much the ultimate in attempting to avoid responsibility for his actions. This guy that was "a different man than he was when he got arrested" strike that: "a different man than he was when he pressed a shotgun against a husband and wife and their daughter and killed them" steadfastly refused to help police to his dying day by revealing any information about the gang he founded. He was involved in several attacks on prison guards, escape attempts, etc etc.

The man wasn't on death row because he took some kid's lollipop. He murdered four people, for money. Not because he didn't like them, not because they did anything to him. He killed three at once for a grand total of $100.

There are some places a person goes to, some actions a person takes, that there is no recall from. That once you go there, you don't get to come back and just be a normal average everyday person again. One of those places happens to be killing people in order to take what money they have on them.

So pardon me if I don't listen to your hippie bullshit. Pardon me if I put no stock in it whatsoever. You'll have to excuse me if I don't really mind that you're upset with aspects of my country's legal system. I don't do so out of being an ugly American, but I doubt that you'll believe that. I simply do it because I can't fathom most people from my generation or younger not being giant touchy feely pussies.

[K2Grey]

I am not sure why the opinion of the four people he killed is especially relevant.

He is a children's book writer, isn't that more productive than rotting away in jail?

He is a nominee for the Nobel Prize, that means he has done good works, and benefitted many people. He has used his life to enrich that of others, is that a bad thing? If he had been killed, what would have happened to the lives of those whom he helped?

Do you have to constantly seek after revenge, answering one death with another? Do you think it would be right to say "I don't care that <x number of people> will be screwed if Tookie hadn't done what he did after leaving jail, I want to kill him no matter what"?

[Galleleo]

You can also look at it from this point of view: If your country wouldn't have had the death penalty, he would have gotten life and he would have been able to write more childrenbooks and stuff. I am not saying that that makes up for anything he did, BUT atleast he would have been of use the rest of his life. He would have been able to do more. I don't know enough about the whole tookie case, but from what you said, he certainly didn't deserve to ever get on parole. But he could have done more "good" having the life sentence then the death penalty.

[WuTang420]

eye for an eye if u ask me. then again i admit to being rather simple minded, but i like it that way

[Galleleo]

But then again you are stuck with the question, are we really allowed to take someone's life. I mean you are punishing someone because he did something that is against the law, murdering someone, then you basicly do the exact same thing. You murder him. Atleast a very simplistic approach of the death penalty. But it comes down to the same thing in my eyes. So if we can do it, why can't he do it?

And you say Eye for an Eye, does that mean, that when person A robs person B and gets taken to court for it, the judge gets to say: Person b is now allowed to rob person A.. In a simplistic point of view, that is basicly the same thing, one persons murders another person, so we murder him. That should mean if one person rapes another person, that person should be allowed to do it back.

[WuTang420]

actually in america person B is forced to rob person A through fines and victim restitution

edit: and if person A rapes person B i think person B should be allowed to decide if he wants the rapist chemiclly castrated.