Death Penalty

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='Retribution][font=Arial]The entire reason we have a legal system is so that it can act as an impartial third party arbiter in disputes. The philosophy behind this is the notion that people do not act dispassionately or rationally when they are the ones wronged -- if you and I are in disagreement, you might think I deserve punishment X when in reality I deserve a less harsh punishment. But because you have such immediate proximity to the event (i.e. it happened to you), you're not able to displace yourself from it and make a fair and balanced decision. The courts do that for us, so that there's no question of if the judgement handed down is from an uninvolved, dispassionate party.[/font][/quote]Which is why we have the legal system to begin with, but seriously Retri, try searching the web, you'll find quite a few families who have lost loved ones actually oppose the Death Penalty. I'm not just saying this, it's a fact. Look it up.[QUOTE=Retribution][font=Arial']You'll probably make the point that if the court system gives a verdict, then it must be fair (i.e. since the court sentences someone to death, they were dispassionate and balanced in their ruling). This argument would have great merit were it not for the fact America has a disproportionately high level of persons executed annually. This means that, aside from being in the league of China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, et al, we're simply more predisposed to condemn someone to death. Our courts and our people favor death to other punishment. It's just insane.[/font][/quote]Retri, honestly, you're just being ridiculous here. If you compare America to countries that don't execute people for crimes of course it looks out of whack. But using the data provided in the link Aaryanna put in her post, it's anything [I]but[/I] disproportionate. For 29 years America has, on average, executed 38 people a year where approximately 20,500 people a year have been murdered. I don't seen a huge disparity in that figure. If anything it goes in the [I]other[/I] direction. It's rather convenient that you excluded China because they out do all other countries combined. In the year 2004 they executed approximated 3,400 people. Three times as many people as the US in [B]29 years[/B].

You're also conveniently overlooking how the Death Penalty in America has slowly been altered to do away with allowing minors to be given the sentence. It has quite a few things in place to protect the innocent as Allamorph already mentioned. So it's far from being a system of [I]we kill to get revenge[/I]. Also, I never said the legal system was without flaw. [B]:/ [/B] [quote name='Retribution][font=Arial]You can send the person to jail for life without parole. This is probably the safest of all options, because if later down the line new evidence surfaces that exonerates the prisoner, they can be free and have a second shot at life. The invention of DNA techniques is a prime example of evidence showing up later.[/font][/quote]You forgot the bit on how many states, life without parole only means a person has to serve for 25 years before it can be considered. If they want to be more serious about that, the life without parole option needs to really mean [I][U]Life[/U]. [U]With[/U]. [U]No[/U]. [U]Option[/U]. [U]For[/U]. [U]Parole[/U]. [/I]That's a gap that needs to be closed if they're going to consider that.[QUOTE=Retribution][font=Arial]If you just execute them, there's no second shot. There's no possibility of giving back that person their life if they were really innocent. You've just killed someone.[/font][/quote]I think it was already established that appeals and other means to determine if someone really is innocent is in place. So we're just rehashing at this point.[QUOTE=Retribution][font=Arial']Looking at the numbers, that's what I'm seeing. I'm seeing a nation that executes as many people as fundamentalist countries in the Middle East. Forgive me for assuming people here are a little less than sensible when they've been heavily wronged.[/font][/quote]o_O We have an extensive justice system in place that is not only cautious about when the death penalty can be sought, but is also set up to allow extensive appeals for those who are convicted. Based on this... I think you're assumptions are [I]way[/I] off base. The numbers of those who actually are executed a year simply do not indicate a society that isn't sensible. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Aaryanna]

[COLOR="Sienna"][FONT="Tahoma"][quote name='Retribution][font=Arial']As a side note, Aaryanna - the plaintiff does not have to seek the death penalty, they can opt for life without parole. The prosecutor takes into consideration the wishes of the wronged party.[/font][/quote]It still doesn't change the fact that certain conditions have to be met before that penalty can even be considered, no matter what the wronged party wishes. Also, I did a quick search like Beth suggested. This is just one of the sites I found: [URL="http://www.mvfr.org/"][U]Against[/U][/URL] So I find your implied generalization that they are just out for revenge inaccurate as well. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[Retribution]

[font=Arial]I don't know how to say this any other way. I acknowledge that I'm making a generalization when I say "the wronged party does not behave dispassionately" and thus is more predisposed to seek the death penalty. Of course it's not true in 100% of cases, but for the vast majority I would say it holds. You'll always be able to find a few exceptions to the rule, however in large part, victimized parties in the US seek death.

I'm of the opinion that the death penalty is indeed killing for revenge. It's a very basal practice that fails to transcend our primal urges to exact an eye for an eye. The vast majority of the developed world (read: the west) has done away with it, and the fact that America still clings to it is bizarre. Our country is perhaps the most resistant to progress in the west.

After a brief search, I happened upon [url=http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_exe-crime-executions][b]this site[/b][/url], and I couldn't help but notice what sort of company our nation was enjoying on the graph. Forgive me for disparaging the death penalty and those who support it, but it appears the US is once again holding tight to a measure most of our peer nations have moved past. I suppose my view is that progress is a trend that moves to the left, and the death penalty is a vestige of rightist governance.

Cheers on a rigorous discussion, but I'm willing to accept our differing worldviews.[/font]

[Boo]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]Our country is [strike]perhaps[/strike] the most resistant to progress in the west.[/font][/QUOTE]
[size=1]Fixed. :)

Seriously, that it is even necessary to debate this topic, already hints (in a rather nuclear bullet-to-the-head hinting way) that something is quite horribly wrong.[/size]

[Korey]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]I don't know how to say this any other way. I acknowledge that I'm making a generalization when I say "the wronged party does not behave dispassionately" and thus is more predisposed to seek the death penalty. Of course it's not true in 100% of cases, but for the vast majority I would say it holds. [/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][COLOR="Indigo"]I can't agree with this. Regardless of the families emotions towards the crime, the punishment must fit the crime that is committed. If you want to say that killing is wrong, then let's put it in this perspective.

You're at a friend's house and you've had a few drinks. You decide you're ok to drive home and your equally drunk friend goes with you. You lose control of your vehicle and you crash into a tree. Your friend wasn't wearing his seatbelt and gets ejected from the vehicle and dies on the scene. Because of your carelessness and regret, you just killed another person.

Obviously his family isn't going to be too happy with you about it, but would it be fitting to say "Oh I wanted to seek the death penalty because you killed my child by your own carlessness?" Would you really want that for yourself for something you didn't do purposely?

I wouldn't go so far as to say even the vast majority of homicide cases even warrant the death penalty. I would say that for especially heinous acts, like mass murder, terrorism, sexual assaults, and genocide. I would also extend that to crimes done not as "murders of passion", where the murder takes place after an argument between two parties that are familiar between one another, but as "remorseless crimes", ones that are done with utter disregard to any sort of life.[/COLOR][/font]

[quote name='Retriubtion']You'll always be able to find a few exceptions to the rule, however in large part, victimized parties in the US seek death.[/quote]

[Font="franklin gothic medium"][COLOR="Indigo"]Hardly, and to prove my point I'd like to direct you [URL="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punishable-death-penalty"][COLOR="Blue"][U]here[/U][/COLOR][/URL]. Every wronged party does not have the right to seek the death penalty in murder cases. The defendant has to satisfy specific qualities. Most of them involve aggrivated murder with having to meet special circusmstances. So even though a murder may occur, it has to go through over 15 facets in most states before it can be considered a death penalty worthy trial. So like I mentioned earlier, it has to be a really heinous crime for capital punishment to even be considered.[/COLOR][/font]

[quote name=' Retriubtion']I'm of the opinion that the death penalty is indeed killing for revenge. It's a very basal practice that fails to transcend our primal urges to exact an eye for an eye. The vast majority of the developed world (read: the west) has done away with it, and the fact that America still clings to it is bizarre. Our country is perhaps the most resistant to progress in the west.[/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][COLOR="Indigo"]Well, I like to take the "put yourself in the victim's shoes" angle here. If your family was mercilessly slaughtered at the hands of some lunatic, would you not seek the death penalty? Or would you cling to some sort of moral high ground, even though this person just took everything from you, with no regards to your wishes? I think that the decision lies in the hands of those from case to case, but to say that America is bizarre because it clings to the death penalty and is resistant to progress is also to say that penitentiaries aren't full or that heinous crimes, worthy of capital punishment, should just result with some bars slammed in front of you.

I'm not really trying to discount anyone who thinks that the death penalty is wrong and that we shouldn't have it as a society. However, I do ask that people look at all sides of the issue and try to envision yourself being a victim of the crime or a relative of the victim of the crime. Most people who get into this kind of discussion and take a moral high point fail to realize the reasons why we have the death penalty in the first place.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[Raiha]

[COLOR="darkorchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]I believe the Death Penalty is an important fixture of the justice system both as a means of repaying a debt incurred by the taking of human life as well as a matter of discouraging crime.

Whether you agree with me or not is all gravy, I'll just quietly consider you to be less than mentally capable.

Life without parole isn't really something that I like to put forth as an alternative to capital punishment as most of these sorts spend their time in relatively cushy cells with access to enormous libraries, HBO, and food that is quite edible. I'd prefer it if they lived out their days in women's underwear [if they're men], get punched in the mouth on an hourly schedule, and waterboarded every two hours just in case the punching isn't enough. Then it'd also be quite nice if they could endure some form of intense psychological distress, such as listening to the Beastie Boys. But on the other hand, it may be just simpler to lead them out back and shoot them.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[Boo]

[quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][COLOR="Indigo"]Well, I like to take the "put yourself in the victim's shoes" angle here. If your family was mercilessly slaughtered at the hands of some lunatic, would you not seek the death penalty? Or would you cling to some sort of moral high ground, even though this person just took everything from you, with no regards to your wishes? [/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE][size=1]I reckon this is the part where people would not want someone to get the death penalty directly, but you would instead want them to have a thorough torture session, or to a tough prison with lot's of slippery soapies at their disposal. A combination of both would be neat.

In the stated case, a quick death is very likely not considered painful enough and the killer probably could not care less about being executred if he slaughters whole families. For the same reasons, I doubt a death penalty is going to scare them off from killing.[/size]
[quote name='Korey'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][COLOR="Indigo"]Most people who get into this kind of discussion and take a moral high point fail to realize the reasons why we have the death penalty in the first place.[/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE][size=1]Because the other side of the people kind of have different opinions about this one.

What is the ultimate reason why there [i]should[/i] be Death Penalty?

[/size]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='Boo][size=1']For the same reasons, I doubt a death penalty is going to scare them off from killing.[/size][/quote]
[FONT=Arial]Agreed. And by the same token, prison time does not deter people from stealing?whether it be embezzlement or grand theft auto or falsification of tax reports?because the one thought [I]most closely universal[/I] in these cases is the idea that the doer of the act will get away with it.

I am highly amused at those who get hung up on prison time and the death sentence as merely deterrents for the crimes with which they are associated.

[quote name='Boo][SIZE=1]What is the ultimate reason why there [i]should[/i'] be Death Penalty?[/size][/quote]
Ah, but wouldn't that drag us into more theology? :p[/FONT]

[SunfallE]

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"][quote name='Retribution][font=Arial]I don't know how to say this any other way. I acknowledge that I'm making a generalization when I say "the wronged party does not behave dispassionately" and thus is more predisposed to seek the death penalty. Of course it's not true in 100% of cases, but for the vast majority I would say it holds. You'll always be able to find a few exceptions to the rule, however in large part, victimized parties in the US seek death.[/font][/quote]So long as you see that not all of them do, that's all I'm looking for. [QUOTE=Retribution][font=Arial]I'm of the opinion that the death penalty is indeed killing for revenge. It's a very basal practice that fails to transcend our primal urges to exact an eye for an eye. The vast majority of the developed world (read: the west) has done away with it, and the fact that America still clings to it is bizarre. Our country is perhaps the most resistant to progress in the west.[/font][/quote]And that's fine, because you're certainly entitled to that opinion. Part of why I tend to take it to task is for myself and others that I know, it's not a primal urge to exact an eye for an eye. It's only for the most horrible of crimes. The ones where you know that given the chance they can and will kill again. The very idea of extending that to include all murders is something I would oppose.[QUOTE=Retribution][font=Arial]After a brief search, I happened upon [url=http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_exe-crime-executions][b]this site[/b][/url'], and I couldn't help but notice what sort of company our nation was enjoying on the graph. Forgive me for disparaging the death penalty and those who support it, but it appears the US is once again holding tight to a measure most of our peer nations have moved past. I suppose my view is that progress is a trend that moves to the left, and the death penalty is a vestige of rightist governance.[/font][/quote]Well you see, I'm not at all against tightening up the system and making it harder to seek it. I only support it for the more severe cases.

It's also worth noting that if they were to change the law so life without parole really meant that, instead of the deal where in 25-30 years they can be considered... then most of my objection to getting rid of it would vanish.[quote name='Retribution][font=Arial']Cheers on a rigorous discussion, but I'm willing to accept our differing worldviews.[/font][/quote]Same here. I really don't think we're too far off when you think about it. I support it because right now our system to deal with it, should it be banned, is inadequate.

I'll still think it's acceptable, but if they really do make it so they'd never be free to do it again, I would be fine with that. But right now that's not the case so until it is, I will continue to support it. [/FONT][/COLOR]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="darkorchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"] I believe the Death Penalty is an important fixture of the justice system both as a means of repaying a debt incurred by the taking of human life as well as a matter of discouraging crime. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff] I fail to see your logic here Raiha. If it's such an important fixture, then why do other countries- such as Canada which is a mirror of our government- not have it in their justice system, yet their crime rate is much lower than that of the United States? This theory of equivilant of exchange isn't displayed very well for anyone here. Not that I don't believe that some people in some situations do deserve the death penalty. But to say that it's important is a rather ridiculous thing to say since as stated at the beginning of the paragraph, other countries don't have the death penalty and haven't had it for years yet they get along just fine. Counter that one and I'll find proof[/color]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="darkorchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"] Whether you agree with me or not is all gravy, I'll just quietly consider you to be less than mentally capable.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]I agree with you to a point, in some cases people do deserve to die- that man who killed his son because of child support should be... well we want to keep this a clean thread so I can't say, but sometimes I wish they still did the whole firing range or a good old fashioned hanging for serial rapists and killers.

But for people who don't agree with me I wouldn't go so far as to consider them "less than mentally capable" because that's beyond presumptuous and boardering on blantantly ignorant. Maybe it's because people are finding that it's not the best when you can be wrong when you kill some one and find out they were innocent. Because innocent people that are locked up can be set free, dead and innocent can't be returned.[/color]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="darkorchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"] Life without parole isn't really something that I like to put forth as an alternative to capital punishment as most of these sorts spend their time in relatively cushy cells with access to enormous libraries, HBO, and food that is quite edible. I'd prefer it if they lived out their days in women's underwear [if they're men], get punched in the mouth on an hourly schedule, and waterboarded every two hours just in case the punching isn't enough. Then it'd also be quite nice if they could endure some form of intense psychological distress, such as listening to the Beastie Boys. But on the other hand, it may be just simpler to lead them out back and shoot them. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[color=#9933ff]Okay, I feel a need to point this out before I continue: [B]GITMO IS CLOSED DEAR[/B]!

Now that that's over do you realize what life is like without parole for say a guy who was convicted of murdering children in a prison where a lot of the inmates have children? I'm not an expert on prison life (except when the residents at the nursing home compair the building to prison) I don't work as a correctional officer (although some days I think that could be easier than dealing with 33 Alzheimers and dimensia patients) But I can't imagine that even criminals with children would be all that forgiving to a person who murdered children. .

Also I have a theory that not only is cable TV a privledge, but it's also used to keep the inmates calm so we don't have any riots ala Attica State prison. It's not fully for the inmate's enjoyment it's for the guards safety. Plus I doubt it's on constant access.

Same with the food, it's institutional fare. Not exactly cutting edge. State health laws require any facility providing meals for their residents (in this case inmates) should meet nutritional guidelines and caloric requirements. That's really it just basics.

And finally "cushy cells' Seriously Cushy? What are you talking about, Celebrity jail?I drive by my city's jail downtown twice a day when I go to work. The exterior itsself looks far from cozy. From what I've heard from someone who stayed part of the night in jail it's far from 'cushy' People get beat up there by the other inmates (There's your punching in the mouth- and no one gets fired for abuse of power).You have to do your business in front of everyone else on the fancy metal toilet in the center of your "cushy' 13x8 (estimate) cell. And you get to choose from the top or the bottom of two gloryfied cots. Yeah vacation!

While I fail to see eye to eye with your endorsement (okay close to it) of physical torture- the UN has veiwed waterboarding as inhumane and Guantanimo Bay has been closed down because of human rights violations. So no physical and most mental torture is out. I can appreciate the comments on playing obnoxious music. I vote for playing Barney and friends until someone cracks and does himself in. That way you don't have to worry about being berated for being for or against capital punishment because you weren't involved. Does that make any sense?

So there's my fifty-cents worth of reply. I need to go to bed so I can fall asleep and wake up again.[/color]

[Allamorph]

[quote name='SunfallE][COLOR="RoyalBlue"][FONT="Lucida Sans Unicode"]Well you see, I'm not at all against tightening up the system and making it harder to seek it.[/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote]

[QUOTE][FONT="Arial"]During the pre-trial phase, the State?s Attorney in the charging county has full discretion to file a notice of intention to seek a penalty of death as long as the following four conditions are met.
[LIST][*]The State?s Attorney must file the notice and all aggravating circumstances on which the State intends to rely at least thirty days prior to the trial;
[*] The defendant must have been at least 18 years old at the time of the offense;
[*] The defendant cannot be mentally retarded; and,
[*] The defendant must be accused of principalship (e.g. the actually[[I]sic[/I]] killer) in the first degree or of principalship in the second degree. For murder in the second degree, the defendant must also meet the conditions that he or she: 1) intended the premeditated murder of a law enforcement officer, 2) was a major participant in the murder and 3) was actually present at the time and place of the murder.[/LIST]
Although a case may meet the above conditions, the decision to file a death notice is ultimately at the discretion of the State?s Attorney. Furthermore, the State?s Attorney has the discretion to unilaterally withdraw the death notice at any point during the trial.[/FONT][/QUOTE]
[FONT=Arial]It's pretty tight already. And I'm not even listing the mitigating circumstances.[/FONT]

[Drizzt Do'urden]

[quote name='Retribution'][font=Arial]Fun fact of the day:
It costs taxpayers [i][b]more[/b][/i] money to give someone the death penalty than it does to imprison them for life.
[/quote]

I pretty much covered my views on the death penalty in my last post, but since somebody had to rebuke me I figured I'd add a tid-bit of knowlege. Without proof you have no argument.

Without proof I can say that all those in favor of abolishing the death penalty are from the dwarf planet Pluto. I can argue to my hearts content, but without proof I have nothing. So what I'm saying is get proof of this, THEN, forget about posting it because I'm sure you are right IF. The person who is on death row gets an inordinate amount of appeals and sits on said row for many years.

Solution, modify Texas' "express lane" service. 2 appeals or less ONLY in this lane.

Plus if you think of somebody who's spending life in prison. What happens if they appeal over and over and over and over and over? Then how does it cost more to shoot them up with some nice sleeping meds and a nice long nap?

[Korey]

[quote name='Drizzt Do'urden']I pretty much covered my views on the death penalty in my last post, but since somebody had to rebuke me I figured I'd add a tid-bit of knowlege. Without proof you have no argument. [/quote]

[COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]No, [B][I]you[/I][/B] have no argument.:rolleyes: [/sarcasm]

While Retribution may be speaking in generalities, a quick google search can find that the costs for executing Death Row inmates are actually comparable to that of court fees and the appeals processes that Death Row inmates may do. So in all actuality, the prices are virtually equal. Now just letting them sit in there for life without possibility of Parole is much cheaper, but the process can still go through appeals hearings. So incarceration in general is one huge cash cow.

And we have the gall to complain about court fees for speeding tickets.:p[/FONT][/COLOR]

[quote name=' Drizzt']Without proof I can say that all those in favor of abolishing the death penalty are from the dwarf planet Pluto.[/quote]

[COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]They're from one of the satellites of Jupiter actually. Io, methinks.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[quote name=' Drizzt'] I can argue to my hearts content, but without proof I have nothing. So what I'm saying is get proof of this, THEN, forget about posting it because I'm sure you are right IF. The person who is on death row gets an inordinate amount of appeals and sits on said row for many years.[/quote]

[COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]As opposed to any other Row? Life Row? Purgatory Row? Out of Body Experience row? There's only one Row as of right now.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[quote name='Drizzt']Solution, modify Texas' "express lane" service. 2 appeals or less ONLY in this lane.[/quote]

[COLOR="Indigo"][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"]Ah, nice wit. Might wanna shoot that up to Perry then. He'll stamp it with the Texas seal of approval.
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[quote name='Drizzt']Plus if you think of somebody who's spending life in prison. What happens if they appeal over and over and over and over and over? Then how does it cost more to shoot them up with some nice sleeping meds and a nice long nap?[/quote]

[FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][COLOR="Indigo"]Well, you figure you have to get the physicians to perform the procedure and handle the chemicals, the chemicals themselves...you pay to have the families brought down to witness the procedure. You pay for the equipment. It adds up eventually. Someone has to make money out of the deal and the right people are doing the job. You don't want Billy Joe Bobby Ray, who guards block B to be doing the procedure with a rusty needle filled with lord knows what.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

Yes there has been a lot said on this, however, I'm only going to answer the opening post with what I think on the idea in general. [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff']Okays Death Penalty, should it be allowed? Is it really our right as humans to decide who lives and who dies? What does everyone think on this subject right now?[/color][/quote]Yes it should be allowed. The problem with the question of deciding who is allowed to decide, is that you're often talking about someone who has already put themselves above that by killing another human being.

You can argue it makes us no better or you can argue that it's our responsiblity to deal with those who would treat other's lives in such a calloused manner. [quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff]Deep thoughts aside right now in New York state we have no death penalty just life imprisionment without parole. Which I guess isn't too bad until you consider that the state is in one of its worst deficites ever. And we have people in State prisons who have willfully murdered showing no remorse. And I'm not talking about killing an adult, I'm talking about murdring babies.[/color][/QUOTE]Beth brought this up already, but life with out parole, isn't. So long as that loophole exists it's not a true solution by any means. Worrying over a deficit is rather pointless since the appeals can result in the death penalty being far more expensive than just locking them away.[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=#9933ff']But that said I'm torn. Do we really get to play God? What gives us that right? And what ever happened to good old public humiliation and maybe some nice branding?[/color][/quote]As much as it pains me to say it, but playing God is a bit of an evasion of the seriousness of the issue. When someone murders without remorse then accepting the consequences from that action take precedence. Whether it's the death penalty or being locked up for the rest of your life is another matter.

[Nathan]

[FONT="Arial"]I support the Death Penalty. And if you wonder why... [URL="http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/"][U]Reality[/U][/URL] it's not so pretty when you go looking into the circumstance behind those who warrant such a sentence.

It may seem humane to lock someone up for life, though the issues regarding the so-called life sentence make that a joke, but it's really not as humane as you might think. Basically, when someone has become so sick that destroying another's life holds no meaning for them, you don't cage a sick animal, you put it out of it's misery. [/FONT]

[itsoverninek]

death penalty eh........nope not my cup of tea

[AbbeyLiz]

I'm one of those people that's all for peace and all, so don't be surprised by my response. :P

But honestly, I think that it is ridiculous that we have a death penalty. Like yeah, it sucks that this person did (insert crime here) but whatever. We're just animals right? So if a bear goes and kills another bear that doesn't mean that the first bear has to die because of it, and we don't make a huge deal out of it. If we're just animals then we should "play God" because we're the "higher" and "more intelligent" species.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't white people used to think of blacks as animals and lower than themselves. So why can't one day we think of animals on the same level as ourselves, or even today?

Well, that was off-subject..But I really don't think it's fair that we give death penalty to people. People argue that it's because we have emotional attachments to other people and have emotional and/or logical reasons for wanting someone dead after something tragic happens; but whose to say that animals don't have emotional connections to each other, and when one of them dies it's just as painful for them as it is for us? No one.

I can't stand how humans hold themselves higher than the rest of the species on Earth. I don't believe peace can ever truly be achieved until we're all putting each other on equal levels. No matter how many people we kill for doing something wrong, it will never fix the world. It is actually "stooping" us to the level of the criminal, is it not?

Just my opinion, sorry it's so long. :/

[Darren]

[quote name='AbbeyLiz']I'm one of those people that's all for peace and all, so don't be surprised by my response. :P

But honestly, I think that it is ridiculous that we have a death penalty. Like yeah, it sucks that this person did (insert crime here) but whatever. We're just animals right? So if a bear goes and kills another bear that doesn't mean that the first bear has to die because of it, and we don't make a huge deal out of it.[/QUOTE]
Well the difference between animals and humans is that we have the conceived notion of murder. If a bear kills another bear, perhaps it's protecting its young or maybe the other one encroached on its territory. Also, if a bear kills another animal. It's for food, just like humans... Now, killing other humans for food would be wrong. Why? Well it's cannibalism... But also, anthropologists say its because throughout the world, nearly every culture has developed the taboo of murder. Humans intrinsically know that it's wrong to kill another human, even if they weren't taught that while growing up.

[quote name='AbbeyLiz']If we're just animals then we should "play God" because we're the "higher" and "more intelligent" species.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't white people used to think of blacks as animals and lower than themselves. So why can't one day we think of animals on the same level as ourselves, or even today?[/QUOTE]
I think there's a difference between mammals and animals. Sure, they're mostly interchangeable and for all intents and purposes, we are mammals (and therefor, animals) But thinking about what I wrote above, when you call someone (say, a murderer) an animal, you don't mean to imply that they're a human being. You say it because they savagely murdered someone else as cruelly as in the animal kingdom.
Not to mention all the stuff about us having advanced thinking capacity and the ability to feel emotion. (Not that animals don't, but they don't feel emotion on the same level that humans do)

And yes, whites used to view blacks as lower than them. (Some still do) But the notion of animals being on the same level as ourselves is just ridiculous. Animals can't communicate with humans, they can't work in an office, and I'll be damned if I ever let a bear get behind the wheel of a car. LOL :rolleyes:

[quote name='AbbeyLiz']I can't stand how humans hold themselves higher than the rest of the species on Earth. I don't believe peace can ever truly be achieved until we're all putting each other on equal levels. No matter how many people we kill for doing something wrong, it will never fix the world. It is actually "stooping" us to the level of the criminal, is it not?

Just my opinion, sorry it's so long. :/[/QUOTE]
First of all, we are higher than other species on Earth for previously mentioned reasons. And I believe that while the death penalty is necessary, (for numerous personal opinions) I think that part of why it's so acceptable is because murder is nearly a culturally universal taboo. (And it certainly is in every industrialized nation)

[AbbeyLiz]

Yes, I understand where you're coming from.
But as you said, "when you call someone (say, a murderer) an animal, you don't mean to imply that they're a human being. You say it because they savagely murdered someone else as cruelly as in the animal kingdom."
Are humans exempt from being part of the animal kingdom? You agree that we are animals, correct?

I do understand what you think and why you think that, and I understand where our trains of thought differ. I also know that I am one of few who think the way I do.
But I honestly can say that I believe other animals (and plants for that matter, but thats for another time) are capeable of complex emotions and attachments the same way humans are. And maybe it's not the animals who can't talk to us, but us who can't talk to the animals.?
Native Americans used to communicate with the Earth and somehow in the formation of society many of us have lost the ability to do this and I believe this is why we feel we are superior, we're absorbed in our power over all other living things and continue to be power hungry.

Edit: The book [U]Ishmael[/U] is highly enlightening on this subject if you're interested.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[B][FONT=fiolex girls][SIZE="7"][COLOR="Magenta"]O[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][FONT=monotype corsiva][SIZE="4"][COLOR="#9933ff"]kay. I'm just going to ignore most of what has happened and give out a new scenerio.

So over the weekend this new cop (twenty-three years old) on the RPD was shot in the back of the head after he responded to a drug complaint in the city. Today the person who did it turned himself in and get this, he's fourteen years old.

They've been saying on the news that the officer is showing some signs of progress. He's responding to his parent's voices, but he's still in guarded condition. His attacker is as I've said a fourteen year old boy. This young man has been charged as an adult with attempted murder and assault. If the young police officer dies, what should the verdict be for the attacker?[/color][/font][/size]

[chibi-master]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman'][FONT=monotype corsiva][SIZE="4"][COLOR="#9933ff"]This young man has been charged as an adult with attempted murder and assault. If the young police officer dies, what should the verdict be for the attacker?[/color][/font][/size][/QUOTE]

I think the better question is, why is a 14 year old being tried as an adult?!

Anyway, if the cop doesn't die, then it's not murder. Tragic as it may be, if it isn't murder, then I see no need to kill the boy. Life in jail, probably.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[quote name='chibi-master']I think the better question is, why is a 14 year old being tried as an adult?!

Anyway, if the cop doesn't die, then it's not murder. Tragic as it may be, if it isn't murder, then I see no need to kill the boy. Life in jail, probably.[/QUOTE]

[B][FONT=fiolex girls][SIZE="7"][COLOR="Magenta"]E[/color][/font][/b][/size][FONT=monotype corsiva][SIZE="4"][COLOR=#9933ff]xcellent question Chibi, glad you asked.

He's being tried as an adult because he acted as an adult. I'm learning more now from the news. He's already been a juvenile offender since- oh you'll love this- the sixth grade. Now on this station they're not saying how he's being tried. But I would like to know if the opinions of those who believe in the death penalty have changed when the attacker is so young and this wasn't in self defense[/color][/font][/size]

[Aaryanna_Mom]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][COLOR="#9933ff"']So over the weekend this new cop (twenty-three years old) on the RPD was shot in the back of the head after he responded to a drug complaint in the city. Today the person who did it turned himself in and get this, he's fourteen years old.[/color][/quote]You need a better example than that. The death penalty can no longer be applied to anyone under 18 years of age. [URL="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4518051"][U]Court Ruling[/U][/URL] And I agree with that decision even though I support the Death Penalty.

[TheShinje]

I agree with the death penalty in the most extreme cases. Not to send a message, but to eliminate.

Over here we have just had the conclusion to the sad case of a three year old who was mis-treated and neglected by every adult she knew. Two late teens subjected her to systematic abuse, where this poor girl was hung from a clothesline and spun until she fell off, thrown in a tumble dryer while it was on, and was frequently the subject of the teens' wrestling moves. The abuse was so horrific, she later died from a cerebral haemhorrage.

The two who dished out this disgusting abuse on the poor infant got 17 years jail. Every part of me wanted to see them hung, from the highest tree.

I don't support it in all cases, but there must be a time to just eliminate this scum, take them out for good.

[Rachmaninoff]

[QUOTE=AbbeyLiz]Yes, I understand where you're coming from.
But as you said, "when you call someone (say, a murderer) an animal, you don't mean to imply that they're a human being. You say it because they savagely murdered someone else as cruelly as in the animal kingdom."
Are humans exempt from being part of the animal kingdom? You agree that we are animals, correct?[/QUOTE]When you say someone is an animal, it implies that they have willingly cast aside their humanity. That part of them that tells them that murder or rather killing, that isn't necessary for survival, is wrong. Arguing over the exactly biological nature of how living creatures are structured is fundamentally flawed and I'll explain why in a moment.[QUOTE=AbbeyLiz]But I honestly can say that I believe other animals (and plants for that matter, but thats for another time) are capeable of complex emotions and attachments the same way humans are. And maybe it's not the animals who can't talk to us, but us who can't talk to the animals.?
Native Americans used to communicate with the Earth and somehow in the formation of society many of us have lost the ability to do this and I believe this is why we feel we are superior, we're absorbed in our power over all other living things and continue to be power hungry.[/QUOTE]This is why your argument is flawed, you first make the point that we are all animals and then turn around and try to claim that they are no different. And yet scientific research points to animals not having the same mental capacity or ability that humans do. What I see here is you attempting to give basic and more primitive reactions, by animals, to the world around them, a romanticized slant that stems from your own desire to believe that animals are no different from people.

You're going to have to do better than folk lore and sweeping statements if you wish to convince people. Also your assumption that humans are [I]power hungry[/I] for having the ability to see that difference, is also an assumption. Power has nothing to do with it. They are not the same, pretty basic and easy to see. A bear, like in your first example, does not feel remorse or have morals over killing another bear. It's most often a case of survival. There's just no comparison at all.[quote name='AbbeyLiz]Edit: The book [U]Ishmael[/U'] is highly enlightening on this subject if you're interested.[/quote]And here's another problem with the argument, you're suggesting that we read a book that is work of [U]fiction[/U] offering positive solutions to global problems. It is by no means factual in any sense of the word. It is a story of hope perhaps, but still fiction. The problem with this is fiction, as stated in the dictionary, is [I]an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation[/I].

It might make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside to read it, but it's not a true story or factual and shouldn't be taken as such.