Views on Capital Punishment

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Boba Fett [/i]
[B][COLOR=green] The Death Penalty removes the most undesirable members of our society, and gives them the worst possible punishment for their crimes.

[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]As we've mentioned though...it's really not the worst possible punishment. It's a painless injection on a bed. You even get a nice meal beforehand.

For some crazy murderer, this is hardly punishment. As I said earlier...it's a way out, more than a punishment.

Of course, the prison system (both in the United States and here in Australia) is probably not harsh enough on the worst criminals. It should definitely be a situation where the worst offenders are [i]truly punished[/i] for their crime -- not sent to some kind of hotel on the one hand, nor given the easy way out via an injection on the other.

The reason I quoted you earlier was to point out your use of the word "disgusting". I just felt that it was strong language, given that people who object to the death penalty for moral reasons certainly have the best intentions at heart. I don't think that their opinion is any less legitimate -- though I know you weren't necessarily trying to say that they didn't have valid concerns. I just found it a point of interest.[/color]

[Dan L]

I don't quite see how the eye for an eye, ie. death penalty for murder system works particularly well. Essentially what you're saying is "You killed someone, therefore it's OK to kill you". (On a side note, the eye-for-an-eye system in the Bible was meant as a means to reduce violence by giving people an incentive, not to keep it going by giving people justification)

But for who is it OK to kill another life? If one man kills another, then another man kills him, then surely the second man must be killed as well because he commited the same crime?

Do any of you have any idea how stoning came about?

Essentially Stoning- ie the killing of someone by getting a whole community to throw brick-sized stones at them, was a method of smearing the blame about to the point that no one person can be pin-pointed.

Everybody joined in and thus no specific person could be identified as the one who killed the criminal, and thus the chain of punishment stopped there.

What happens today is that rather than a huge number of people being involved in the act of killing, instead a huge number of people support it and thus society as a whole is to blame.

What [i]exactly[/i] is the difference between then and now?

You guys are always arguing that morality is a subjective thing, so the laws of what's punishable by death penalty today can't be any better than they were in those times.

Are we civilised? I don't think so. We may have to wait 50 years or so to see how uncivilised we are today in light of the society of the future. I'm not saying we'll be as technologically advanced as many films from the 80's and 90's suggest, but society has a tendency to change a lot even if technology doesn't seem to massively.

So if we're no better than we were, only different, and we're not really truly "civilised" because we know from experience that we never are, and if we look back on the silly things that were punishable by death in the past and mock them, what makes the death penalty right for [i]anything[/i] right now?

Do you guys even have any sense of what it is to wipe out a human life?

I recognise that what I'm saying is my opinion and thus you don't need to believe it but I'd appreciate that you at least consider that this may be true before you reply. The only way to look at anything with an open mind is to consider that it could be true rather than view it with your own pre-judgements in mind. Because in actual fact you and I are all a lot dumber than we know, thus if we view everything by what we already know then we just stay as dumb as we already are.

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#707875]The reason I quoted you earlier was to point out your use of the word "disgusting". I just felt that it was strong language, given that people who object to the death penalty for moral reasons certainly have the best intentions at heart. I don't think that their opinion is any less legitimate -- though I know you weren't necessarily trying to say that they didn't have valid concerns. I just found it a point of interest.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Boba Fett [/i]

[COLOR=green]However, many argue that the death sentence is immoral. They say that if United States citizens aren?t allowed to commit murder, why should the government be allowed to? Why should the rest of society ?stoop to their level?? [B]I find this argument disgusting[/B]; from ancient times people have known that the punishment must fit the crime. If proper and appropriate punishment is not given to criminals, there will be incentive for people to commit crimes so they can profit from them. If a jury recommends the death penalty, the person in question clearly has done something that warrants that punishment. Currently it costs more for a criminal to be put to death than for someone to be imprisoned for life. I feel that this is well worth the cost, and the lengthy legal absurdities that occur before an execution are more than enough to weed out the innocent.[/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=green]Yes, now that you mention it the use of such strong language doesn?t seem to be appropriate for a civilized debate involving morals. It appears that perhaps I should have replaced "disgusting" with a more suitable "misguided" or "illogical".

As for the Death Penalty being the worst possible punishment, I think that it is the worst punishment offered by the US legal system today. Nothing is more final and uncertain than death. It's the most valuable thing that we can take from a person, as punishment for their crime(s). I just don't see what else can be done, besides a total reform of the prison system. Most other punishments that would be seen as "worse than death", are simply too cruel or unusual to be used today. Even the death penalty has been softened, from gas chambers and firing squads to lethal injections.

James, you mentioned the death penalty being a way out, for some of these insane criminals without regard for human life, what else can be done with them? I really don't care if it's used as a way out; these are people I didn't want "in" anyway. Should I care if they're trying to stop me from spending my tax dollars to feed them?

That's my take. Now if I was only old enough to vote... :whoops:[/COLOR]

[satan665]

Looking at the whole economics of prison argument is kinda silly considering its a matter of lifa and death. Who cares how much money it costs to imprison someone?

I can trust 12 people to decide whether or not someone has commited a crime for the most part, but deciding on the life of a person is sketchy. I think if only one person is killed unjustly then the death penalty should simply be never used. We pretty much know that it has happened also...some people are dead for no reason! You can't write that off.

If we want less crowded prisons we should just have treatment programs for drug addicts instead of tossing them in jail. Our prisons are mostly full of people in for drug-related crimes and not murders.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Boba Fett [/i]
[B][COLOR=green]
As for the Death Penalty being the worst possible punishment, I think that it is the worst punishment offered by the US legal system today. Nothing is more final and uncertain than death. It's the most valuable thing that we can take from a person, as punishment for their crime(s). I just don't see what else can be done, besides a total reform of the prison system. Most other punishments that would be seen as "worse than death", are simply too cruel or unusual to be used today. Even the death penalty has been softened, from gas chambers and firing squads to lethal injections. [/color][/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]But do you really think it's "misguided" for someone to desire that their Government doesn't commit murder? I mean, I personally wouldn't lose much sleep if a murderer was killed. But I can see why people object to the principle of state-sanctioned murder. It's obviously a very interesting contradiction.

But yeah, what I would advocate would be a change in the prison system itself to coincide with the elimination of the death penalty and on that point:[/color][quote][b][color=green]

James, you mentioned the death penalty being a way out, for some of these insane criminals without regard for human life, what else can be done with them? I really don't care if it's used as a way out; these are people I didn't want "in" anyway. Should I care if they're trying to stop me from spending my tax dollars to feed them?

[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]What can be done with them is to give them a life sentence in prison. A death sentence is a way out of that...it's a way out of one's punishment.

In any case, I do see there being a dilemma here. The death penalty is not really desirable for various reasons...it's also expensive, as pointed out above. But also, the prison system itself isn't the kind of punishment that is really required.

I wouldn't ask for anything "cruel or unusual", at least...I certainly wouldn't ask for torture or anything like that. I guess that at the very least, I'd ask for certain privileges to be removed for the worst offenders -- no TV, magazines, books, radio, etc. So that'd be a good start, I think. But obviously there are many other issues to consider; prison reform isn't a simple task.[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=blue]I had to do a debate on this for P.I.G. class my senior year. Understand, my senior year was five years ago.
You have to describe both the pros and cons of the situation and get people to agree with your side of the aguement. So here's my position. I don't expect you to agree with me, just read and review.
[b]Pros[/b]:
There is a problem with prisons being over crowded. This process of capital punishment will lessen the people in prison on death-row.
Also, there is the cost of keeping the prisoner incarcerated and alive. You aren't allowed to starve the person, you must feed them. Also they must be clothed and given a place to stay. This includes the prisoners who are serving back to back life sentances with no chance of parol. The costs add up from year to year.
[b]Cons[/b]:
It shouldn't be up to people to decide who lives and who dies.
What if the person was wrongly accused and executed anyway? Wouldn't the executioner be just as guilty as the actual perpetrator?

Most of my paper is missing so I can't do the rest of it. Also this was a joint project.[/color]

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#707875]But do you really think it's "misguided" for someone to desire that their Government doesn't commit murder? I mean, I personally wouldn't lose much sleep if a murderer was killed. But I can see why people object to the principle of state-sanctioned murder. It's obviously a very interesting contradiction.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=green]I think that it is definitely misguided for someone to oppose giving a government more power than an average citizen. If the government if forced to assume only the powers and rights of an average citizen, then it would be ineffective at best.


Regarding people who oppose the Death Penalty for religious and moral reasons, I respectfully disagree. I've already stated my reasons for this numerous times.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#707875]What can be done with them is to give them a life sentence in prison. A death sentence is a way out of that...it's a way out of one's punishment.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=green]I disagree; the death penalty is a punishment in itself for several reasons. It ends the criminal's life, taking it away is the most severe and final punishment that we use today. Being executed, and facing the prospect of death isn't the greatest way to spend a lengthy appeal process that may take years. It's simply "putting down" people who have committed crimes worthy of this punishment, but in a humane manner that doesn't sink to the level of murder.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#707875]In any case, I do see there being a dilemma here. The death penalty is not really desirable for various reasons...it's also expensive, as pointed out above. But also, the prison system itself isn't the kind of punishment that is really required. [/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=green]Expensive? I'd assume it'd be cheaper to kill someone than to provide them all the comforts afforded to them in prison, for life. Then again, I really don't have any statistics to back that up.

I guess that in the end, it boils down to this: There are certain criminals that I feel deserve to die.[/COLOR]

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i]
[B][color=blue]Wouldn't the executioner be just as guilty as the actual perpetrator?.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

*Refers to earlier post*

No. Someone would be responsible, but it would be more all of the people who wanted this way of dealing with crime to be put in action, than merely the one who does it. "Don't shoot the messenger". That's all that executioners really are:

Executioner: Your government and a large number of people think you should die for what you've been found guilty of. I'm just the one who has to see it done. And if I don't, someone else will, so it's not really down to me to decide whether you live or die

So really, the executioner, though carrying out the act, isn't the only one responsible.

And if anyone who is pro-death penalty disagrees that they have some responsibilty then in my view you shouldn't ask for it- or ask for it to stay.

Either way you're right, ChibiHorseWoman, it is a con, rather than a pro. I just thought I'd point out that the responsibilty doesn't rest solely on the executioner ;)

[the_fizz]

[color=royalblue]This is a Quotations:[b]
"Does it make sense for the state to hire murderers to kill defenseless victims on death row, in order to prove that hiring murderers to kill defenseless victims is morally wrong? Anon.[/b]
That is how I have viewed capital Punishment, but I guess I would have to say I am [b]for[/b] Capital Punishment.
I mean I believe that old saying, ?An eye for an eye!? or the golden rule of ?Do on to others as you would have done on to you!? If it were my loved one that was murdered, I would want justice. I just know that I would not be able to be the one doing it ~that is some thing I could not do. [b]I feel for[/b] anyone that has to kill someone else as there job. ie.. Soldier and prison guards.
THE FIZZ[/color]:wigout:

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Boba Fett [/i]
[B][COLOR=green]I think that it is definitely misguided for someone to oppose giving a government more power than an average citizen. If the government if forced to assume only the powers and rights of an average citizen, then it would be ineffective at best.[/quote][/color][/b]

[color=#707875]No, I'm not talking about rights. I'm talking about the ability to commit an illegal act; murder.

So it's important to make a distinction there. If your Government tells you not to do something and then they do it themselves...that's hypocritical at best.[/color][quote][b]

[color=green]I disagree; the death penalty is a punishment in itself for several reasons. It ends the criminal's life, taking it away is the most severe and final punishment that we use today. Being executed, and facing the prospect of death isn't the greatest way to spend a lengthy appeal process that may take years. It's simply "putting down" people who have committed crimes worthy of this punishment, but in a humane manner that doesn't sink to the level of murder.[/color][/b][/quote]

[color=#707875]I really don't think that death is as severe a punishment as life in prison, without "comforts". Bear in mind that many of these criminals have very little to lose anyway -- a painless death is a lot easier than a life in prison.

Also, the death sentence is apparently not a very big deterrent. I haven't thoroughly read Baron's post...so I don't know if he has any statistics to support that. But if you compare murder rates in the United States to other countries (on a per capita basis), you'll note that the death penalty makes little difference to criminals. Bear in mind that if you're going to commit murder anyway, then you're also probably unstable enough not to care about a death sentence.

In terms of it being humane...I think that's really just splitting hairs. Whether it's humane or not, it's still state-sanctioned murder. As I said, I don't lose a lot of sleep over the idea that a violent murderer has died. But I do find it odd that a Government can commit murder.[/color][quote][b]



[COLOR=green]Expensive? I'd assume it'd be cheaper to kill someone than to provide them all the comforts afforded to them in prison, for life. Then again, I really don't have any statistics to back that up.

[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]As far as I know, the death penalty costs as much as a life sentence, in terms of Government spending. I believe that Baron's article has a section relating to this. And I've heard statistics on it before, though I don't have any specific ones in front of me.

But yeah, basically...I do see where you're coming from. I also agree that some people probably deserve to die for their crimes -- especially if it's a particularly horrible crime. But at the same time, I have practical problems with the idea of a Government being able to commit murder. And, as mentioned, I don't think that the death penalty is either harsh enough, or an adequate deterrant.[/color]

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by the_fizz [/i]
[B][color=royalblue]?Do on to others as you would have done on to you!? If it were my loved one that was murdered, I would want justice. I just know that I would not be able to be the one doing it ~that is some thing I could do.[/color][/B][/QUOTE]

You've just taken that verse out of context, and you've even given a complete [b]wrong[/b] definition of the very words in it.

Do to others as you [b]WOULD[/b] have done to you. NOT as you [b]DID[/b] have done to you.

In other words do to others as you WANT them to do to yourself.

The two mean completely different things. Would you have someone kill you? I think not. I hope not anyway, these days you never know. But most people don't want to be killed. Thus you don't go and kill someone. The bible verse never gave a specific context for that- it didn't say "do to others as you want them to do to you, provided that they didn't kill someone you love or hurt you in some other way", it simply said to do to others as you want them to do to yourself.

If you don't want to do that, then fine- but don't go quoting that verse to justify something which goes completely against it.

[the_fizz]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dan L [/i]
[B]You've just taken that verse out of context, and you've even given a complete [b]wrong[/b] definition of the very words in it.

Do to others as you [b]WOULD[/b] have done to you. NOT as you [b]DID[/b] have done to you.

In other words do to others as you WANT them to do to yourself.

The two mean completely different things. Would you have someone kill you? I think not. I hope not anyway, these days you never know. But most people don't want to be killed. Thus you don't go and kill someone. The bible verse never gave a specific context for that- it didn't say "do to others as you want them to do to you, provided that they didn't kill someone you love or hurt you in some other way", it simply said to do to others as you want them to do to yourself.

If you don't want to do that, then fine- but don't go quoting that verse to justify something which goes completely against it. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue]What??
You lost me there and I lost you.
I believe in 'an eye for an eye' [b]and[/b] ?Do on to others as you would have done on to you!? but not in the same way.
Maybe I should clear that up!!
'An eye for an eye' is for [b]Capital Punishment[/b] and
?Do on to others as you would have done on to you!? is for against [b]MURDER[/b] not C/P.
I know what it means; maybe I just said it wrong. You know as if you are nice it is because you want someone to be nice back. I thing you got me wrong. I know that the two are different, but you took it wrong and no I would not murder to be murder back. Sorry, it is getting late and I am make some mistakes in my thought process. But it does not mean you get to grrrrr at me for it. Chill out man.
THE FIZZ[/color]:wigout:

[Boba Fett]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#707875]No, I'm not talking about rights. I'm talking about the ability to commit an illegal act; murder.

So it's important to make a distinction there. If your Government tells you not to do something and then they do it themselves...that's hypocritical at best.[/color][/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=green]Correct. However, the government goes through a lengthy and established process before it, pardon the euphemism, removes people from society. The government only "murders" someone after a logical and fair process. This seems to be justification enough for me.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#707875]I really don't think that death is as severe a punishment as life in prison, without "comforts". Bear in mind that many of these criminals have very little to lose anyway -- a painless death is a lot easier than a life in prison.[/color][/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=green]However the fact is that the "comforts" of prison are unlikely to be removed in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the Death Penalty remains a valid punishment in my view.[/COLOR]


[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#707875]Also, the death sentence is apparently not a very big deterrent. I haven't thoroughly read Baron's post...so I don't know if he has any statistics to support that. But if you compare murder rates in the United States to other countries (on a per capita basis), you'll note that the death penalty makes little difference to criminals. Bear in mind that if you're going to commit murder anyway, then you're also probably unstable enough not to care about a death sentence.[/color][/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=green]I?ve read several, although none that I seem to be able to specifically quote at the moment, articles and statistics that show that the Death Penalty isn?t an effective deterrent. However, this has nothing to do with my reasons for the Death Penalty to be employed. Those reasons are stated earlier in this thread.[/COLOR]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#707875]As far as I know, the death penalty costs as much as a life sentence, in terms of Government spending. I believe that Baron's article has a section relating to this. And I've heard statistics on it before, though I don't have any specific ones in front of me. [/color][/B][/QUOTE]

[COLOR=green]I?ve seen statistics that show it both ways. It seems to me that it varies by state. In Texas for example, putting someone to death is far easier, and less costly than in California. The sentence is usually carried out within the month. In CA, any trial that sentences a person to death is automatically re-tried. Only on the second death sentence is the person put on death row. However, CA hasn?t executed anyone in at least five years.

I?ll do a little research, but I?d be willing to bet that in Texas, it?s far cheaper to put someone to death than put them away for life. Perhaps it?s justice system should be used as a model for cost efficient death sentencing.[/COLOR]

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Boba Fett [/i]
[B][COLOR=green]Correct. However, the government goes through a lengthy and established process before it, pardon the euphemism, removes people from society. The government only "murders" someone after a logical and fair process. This seems to be justification enough for me.[/COLOR][/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]So if I go through a fair and logical process, I can murder someone myself? Even if they deserve it? No; I'd probably get the death penalty for that. lol[/color][quote][b]



[COLOR=green]However the fact is that the "comforts" of prison are unlikely to be removed in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the Death Penalty remains a valid punishment in my view.[/COLOR]
[/quote][/b]
[color=#707875]Yeah, it's a shame that the comforts won't be removed anytime soon. But I don't think that the death penalty being a "lesser evil" makes it any more acceptable. So yeah. It's just a matter of opinion there.[/color][quote][b]

[COLOR=green]I?ve read several, although none that I seem to be able to specifically quote at the moment, articles and statistics that show that the Death Penalty isn?t an effective deterrent. However, this has nothing to do with my reasons for the Death Penalty to be employed. Those reasons are stated earlier in this thread.[/COLOR][/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]Yeah...that's right. I'm not sure why you really wrote that paragraph. I don't think I implied that one of your reasons was that the death penalty is a deterrent -- in fact, I was only saying that it's lack of being a deterrent is one reason why I don't support it. So...I wasn't really trying to say that you have that viewpoint -- but a lot of pro-death penalty supporters do.[/color][quote][b]

[COLOR=green]I?ve seen statistics that show it both ways. It seems to me that it varies by state. In Texas for example, putting someone to death is far easier, and less costly than in California. The sentence is usually carried out within the month. In CA, any trial that sentences a person to death is automatically re-tried. Only on the second death sentence is the person put on death row. However, CA hasn?t executed anyone in at least five years.[/quote][/b]

[color=#707875]The problem here is that you can't have your cake and eat it too, unfortunately. In Texas, the sentence is usually carried out within the month -- but the less time it takes to carry out the sentence probably correlates to the number of errors made in terms of innocent people being killed. Obviously, the faster you prosecute a death penalty, the less time you have for post-sentence examinations of forensic evidence and so on.

So that's obviously a concern. But I do take your point; I don't doubt it whatsoever.[/color][quote][b]

I?ll do a little research, but I?d be willing to bet that in Texas, it?s far cheaper to put someone to death than put them away for life. Perhaps it?s justice system should be used as a model for cost efficient death sentencing.[/COLOR] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]It might be cost efficient, but in being cost efficient, it's also probably a lot less effective. I think Baron's article mentions the lack of transparency when it comes to various death sentence procedures in Texas. When you cheapen the process to a large degree, you also therefore remove a lot of the safeguards and time-allowances that other territories may have.

[/color]

[Dan L]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by the_fizz [/i]
[B][color=royalblue]What??
You lost me there and I lost you.
I believe in 'an eye for an eye' [b]and[/b] ?Do on to others as you would have done on to you!? but not in the same way.
Maybe I should clear that up!!
'An eye for an eye' is for [b]Capital Punishment[/b] and
?Do on to others as you would have done on to you!? is for against [b]MURDER[/b] not C/P.
I know what it means; maybe I just said it wrong. You know as if you are nice it is because you want someone to be nice back. I thing you got me wrong. I know that the two are different, but you took it wrong and no I would not murder to be murder back. Sorry, it is getting late and I am make some mistakes in my thought process. But it does not mean you get to grrrrr at me for it. Chill out man.
THE FIZZ[/color]:wigout: [/B][/QUOTE]

Ohhhhhhh..

I thought that you meant that both of them were justification for the first thing you said "I guess I would have to say I am for Capital Punishment."

ie. I thought you were using both verses to justify the killing of one because he killed another- because the first certainly does seem to convey that.

Still, everything I said I stick to except for the misunderstanding that you were saying something opposite.

(I'm just glad I didn't call you a fool :p)

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ChibiHorsewoman [/i]
[B][color=blue][b]Pros[/b]:
There is a problem with prisons being over crowded. This process of capital punishment will lessen the people in prison on death-row.
Also, there is the cost of keeping the prisoner incarcerated and alive. You aren't allowed to starve the person, you must feed them. Also they must be clothed and given a place to stay. This includes the prisoners who are serving back to back life sentances with no chance of parol. The costs add up from year to year.
[color] [/B][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure where the wource was. But to do the medical procedure, the extended and voluptous living contitions, a multitude of court procedures and re-evaluations; Per Capita it costs more to keep a person on death row, and excecute him, instead of life in prison.

[Charles]

I don't believe the death penalty is state-sanctioned murder. The "You're no better than the murders" argument is popular, but transparently false. Simply put, the state has rights that the private individual does not. In a democracy, those rights are given to the state by the electorate. The execution of a lawfully condemned killer is no more an act of murder than is legal imprisonment an act of kidnapping.

Case in point, if I forced people to pay me under threat of punishment, it would be extortion. If a state or government does it, it's taxation. Rights and responsibilities surrendered by the individual are what give the state its power to govern.

Don't mistake me for a cold-hearted Gestapo though. I'm not very keen on the actual execution process. On one hand, it bears repeating, the convicted murderer will die painlessly. The families will have the satisfaction of seeing the murderer die, but the execution will not be nearly as painful or barbaric as the victim's death. It's not really an "eye for an "eye." On the other hand, I'd imagine the prolonged fear of awaiting one's own imminent demise may indeed be the equivalent of more harshly controlled physical pain and torture.

As a matter of fact, fear is the one antagonizing common ground shared by both murderer and victim. Putting a date on anyone's death is sure to lead to a lot of mental stress.

Unfortunately, the process of fulfilling the death penalty is deeply flawed, to say the least.

State and local governments pay for both the prosecution [i]and[/i] defense team; much of this money is spent even if the defendant actually gets a lesser sentence. Once the case gets into Federal Court, oh boy, here we go. The United States starts picking up the defense tab and the sums can be pretty outlandish. Death cases far and away cost more than their non-capital counterparts.

I'm not a fan of the endless appeals cycle either. Convictions are attacked with gusto, sure, but reviewed with more vigor. So, a lot of the sentences can be vacated. The retrials, and hearings must be hell for the families. No doubt about that.

I hate the idea of criminals living it up comfortably in prison, too-- enjoying meals and what not. If you consider the appeals process and the actual time separating conviction and the eventual death penalty take years upon years, there's some work to be done. I won't be pleased until that time space is reduced! That's for sure! Uh-huh!

Moving on, I sure [i]would[/i] like to see the death penalty be stepped up into something more brutal. People who do terrible things deserve to meet terrible, stomach churning, grizzly ends. But, we have to remember that many killers are [i]not[/i] like us. No sir. They're missing something on a psychological level: a conscience. So, when dealing with crimes of passion or complete insanity, I'm not sure that stricter forms of punishment are likely to prove effective as deterrents.

Anyway, put 'em all to death, I say. Just find a better way to do it. I'd prefer killing murderers by way of bullet while they're trapped to the confines of their cells. That's the perfect solution, I think. Very cost efficient.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Charles [/i]
[B]I'm not sure that stricter forms of punishment are likely to prove effective as deterrents.

[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]Well, the death penalty already serves as pretty much a zero deterrent. And we do know that, for example, with the Bali bombers...they [i]want[/i] the death penalty rather than life in prison. So, I think that there are probably quite a few things that would act as a bigger deterrent to a murderer than the death penalty.

Having said that -- and despite my own arguments on here -- I'm [i]relatively[/i] neutral on the subject. I can see both sides and I quite often find myself agreeing with the points that pro-death penalty advocates put forward. I guess that I just see slightly more arguments on the opposing side...so if I [i]had[/i] to choose one side or the other, I'd go against it.

In terms of the state sanctioned murder issue...I do see what you're saying, but I wouldn't want to compare taxation or legal detainment with actually taking a life. Shades of grey, I guess.[/color]

[Guest Bloodsin]

Death accomplishes nothing.
Killing the murderer won't bring the victim back.

We still know next to nothing about the human brain.
Maybe the murderer can't help but act that way.
If there is was a way to fix the mental problem, and bring them back into society, then I'm all for it.
However, some people can only be helped by death.

[James]

[color=#707875]Doesn't this:[/color]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]However, some people can only be helped by death.[/b][/quote]

[color=#707875]Cancel out this:[/color]

[quote][b]Death accomplishes nothing. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=#707875]?

Just a thought. :smirk: [/color]

[Guest Bloodsin]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B][color=#707875]Doesn't this:[/color]



[color=#707875]Cancel out this:[/color]



[color=#707875]?

Just a thought. :smirk: [/color] [/B][/QUOTE]
Thus the "However".

Such words as "However", as here compared, have an adversative sense in reference to something referred to in the context. However is the most general, and leads to a final conclusion or decision. Thus we say, the truth, however, has not yet fully come out; i.e., such is the speaker's conclusion in view of the whole case.

[Charles]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]Thus the "However".

Such words as "However", as here compared, have an adversative sense in reference to something referred to in the context. However is the most general, and leads to a final conclusion or decision. Thus we say, the truth, however, has not yet fully come out; i.e., such is the speaker's conclusion in view of the whole case. [/B][/QUOTE]

Forgive me if this is spam, but "Huh?" O_o;;

[img]http://www.otakuboards.com/attachment.php?postid=527838[/img]

Edit: Just to clarify something. I understand what "However" means and the point you're trying to make. It's just that the explanation you provided seems like an attempt to cover your tracks rather than logical reasoning. Just my take on it though.

Also take note to one of our rules:

[quote][b]"Incoherent Posts: At OtakuBoards.com, we greatly emphasize the concept of having clear, easy to read posts. This includes correct use of spelling, grammar and punctuation. If a member is posting with very poor quality, they will be asked to clean up their future posts. If the member persists in posting poorly, they will be banned from the site."[/b][/quote]

[Baron Samedi]

[quote][i]originally posted by Boba fett[/i]

As for the Death Penalty being the worst possible punishment, I think that it is the worst punishment offered by the US legal system today. Nothing is more final and uncertain than death. It's the most valuable thing that we can take from a person, as punishment for their crime(s). I just don't see what else can be done, besides a total reform of the prison system. Most other punishments that would be seen as "worse than death", are simply too cruel or unusual to be used today. Even the death penalty has been softened, from gas chambers and firing squads to lethal injections[/quote]

For one thing, who is to say that these people value their life? They could do, but they might not as well. Also, in a 2002 or 2003 article I read [I think it was then. It was certainly after '95], there are still some states using the gas chamber and even 1 or 2 utilising firing squads.

Injection, or the sweet emptiness of death is nothing... at this stage they have nothing worthwhile left to them. Like the person who commanded and organised the Bali bombings... if they kill him, he is a martyr. he should be given life in prison. There could be nothing worse than living for 50+ years in a 5m by 3m cell. With a bed, and a toilet, and a basin. And that's all. Nothing worse. It is really the ultimate punishment. No contact with people, 3 hours a week in a soltary exercise yard.

That is punishment.

[The Vampire: Ed]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by wrist cutter [/i]
[B]I think it should be the criminal's choice if they want to be punished for their actions or not. [/B][/QUOTE]

Well, that's just about the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Gee, I wonder what they would say? Was this an attempt at humor, or is this really your opinion? I hope it was an attempt at humor, although a bad one, it would just make you look really stupid to think that it should be up to the criminals of what their punishments should be.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bloodsin [/i]
[B]Thus the "However".

Such words as "However", as here compared, have an adversative sense in reference to something referred to in the context. However is the most general, and leads to a final conclusion or decision. Thus we say, the truth, however, has not yet fully come out; i.e., such is the speaker's conclusion in view of the whole case.[/B][/QUOTE]

You sound like you don't even know what you're talking about. Seems like you're trying to confuse people into thinking you are smart, or something.

Anyway, as for my opinion--well, I think capital punishment is fine. Personally, I think, if someone intentionally kills a person, that person should be put to death. If someone accidentally kills someone, like by say hitting them with their car, they should not--unless it was a hit and run, or that person was under the influences of drugs or alcohol. If you kill someone, you should be killed. An eye for an eye. That's what I say.

[the_fizz]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Dan L [/i]
[B]Ohhhhhhh..

I thought that you meant that both of them were justification for the first thing you said "I guess I would have to say I am for Capital Punishment."

ie. I thought you were using both verses to justify the killing of one because he killed another- because the first certainly does seem to convey that.

Still, everything I said I stick to except for the misunderstanding that you were saying something opposite.

(I'm just glad I didn't call you a fool :p) [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue]It is cool and so am I, that is that you did not call me a fool:cross:. You know thems fighting words with me ~just kidding:p. So I am glad that I cleared it up for you and the rest of the reader. C/P ok, murder bad.:cross:
THE FIZZ[/color]:wigout: