Page 12 of 42 FirstFirst ...
2
10
11
12
13
14
22
... LastLast
  1. #221
    Bloodsail Admiral Dashield28's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    MD, The US of Eh?
    Posts
    1,160
    Kill everyone who is in jail right now. Spend the BILLIONS of $ on education and healthcare for those who contribute to society.

  2. #222
    Quote Originally Posted by Shockzilla View Post
    You have people that commit crimes and then you have carrier criminals, there is a difference. A person that goes into a store and forgets to pay for something has committed a crime; someone that goes in to a store with the intention of stealing is a criminal. In these cases both need to be punished and one needs rehabilitation.

    On January 25, 1971 Charles Manson was guilty, if they let him out would you want him to live in your community? I know I wouldn’t. How about Jeffery Dahmer? Someone that kills and eats people, serial killers and the like need to be recognized as incurable, and a danger to everyone around them, period . No amount of rehabilitation is going to fix those twisted people.

    I don’t see the death penalty as a form of justice or punishment, it is a means of removing a proven threat, a way of protecting those of us that don’t want to kill and eat each other. There is no reason to keep those type of people around.

    I’m for the death penalty, it should be used to remove a threat and not as a deterrent or punishment.
    unfortunately it just doesnt work like that. proscecutors feel the need to "rack up points" by nailing as many as they can as hard as they can. this mentality simply is not conducive to justice, especially in the case of permanent results

  3. #223
    Quote Originally Posted by Shockzilla View Post
    You have people that commit crimes and then you have carrier criminals, there is a difference. A person that goes into a store and forgets to pay for something has committed a crime; someone that goes in to a store with the intention of stealing is a criminal. In these cases both need to be punished and one needs rehabilitation.

    On January 25, 1971 Charles Manson was guilty, if they let him out would you want him to live in your community? I know I wouldn’t. How about Jeffery Dahmer? Someone that kills and eats people, serial killers and the like need to be recognized as incurable, and a danger to everyone around them, period . No amount of rehabilitation is going to fix those twisted people.

    I don’t see the death penalty as a form of justice or punishment, it is a means of removing a proven threat, a way of protecting those of us that don’t want to kill and eat each other. There is no reason to keep those type of people around.

    I’m for the death penalty, it should be used to remove a threat and not as a deterrent or punishment.
    Nice strawman you got there..

    Ofc the choice is either killing them or letting them go...

  4. #224
    Quote Originally Posted by Shockzilla View Post
    You have people that commit crimes and then you have carrier criminals, there is a difference. A person that goes into a store and forgets to pay for something has committed a crime; someone that goes in to a store with the intention of stealing is a criminal. In these cases both need to be punished and one needs rehabilitation.

    On January 25, 1971 Charles Manson was guilty, if they let him out would you want him to live in your community? I know I wouldn’t. How about Jeffery Dahmer? Someone that kills and eats people, serial killers and the like need to be recognized as incurable, and a danger to everyone around them, period . No amount of rehabilitation is going to fix those twisted people.

    I don’t see the death penalty as a form of justice or punishment, it is a means of removing a proven threat, a way of protecting those of us that don’t want to kill and eat each other. There is no reason to keep those type of people around.

    I’m for the death penalty, it should be used to remove a threat and not as a deterrent or punishment.

    This is probably the best way to make this argument.

    The purpose of jails is to keep crazy people out of society. The purpose isn't to "punish" them to make them feel bad, and it's not to enact vengeance or revenge on them. As soon as people starting talking about the death penalty as a form of revenge, they lose all credibility, IMHO. The only reasonable purpose for the death penalty is to permanently remove from society the crazies that won't get fixed (ever).

    As to how each particular society deals with these types of people depends on how they view the sanctity of human life. If society has the right to give and take away the right to life, then sure... let society decide if criminals that can't get rehabilitated should be killed. Personally, I don't think anyone should decide if another human lives or dies though... but that's really more of a philosophical argument.

  5. #225
    ITT: A bunch of pro-CP people that will never be persuaded otherwise, a bunch of people against CP that will never be persuaded otherwise, lots of circular reasoning, opinions stated as fact, anecdotal evidence stated as fact, lack of empirical evidence, bad analogies, faulty logic, etc.

    So, pretty much your average thread. I wouldn't expect anything less, but it's still funny to read.

  6. #226
    Quote Originally Posted by Borzo View Post
    This is probably the best way to make this argument.

    The purpose of jails is to keep crazy people out of society. The purpose isn't to "punish" them to make them feel bad, and it's not to enact vengeance or revenge on them. As soon as people starting talking about the death penalty as a form of revenge, they lose all credibility, IMHO. The only reasonable purpose for the death penalty is to permanently remove from society the crazies that won't get fixed (ever).
    Well if they are truly crazy don't they usually end up in a mental institution, and not on death row?

  7. #227
    Quote Originally Posted by Purlina View Post
    Well if they are truly crazy don't they usually end up in a mental institution, and not on death row?
    When I say "crazy" I don't mean legally crazy. I just mean crazy in the typical sociopath/psychopathic sense. People who know they're doing wrong, but decide to kill and murder a dozen people anyways, because hey... they just don't give a shit. (That kinda crazy.)

  8. #228
    Couple of things.

    1) To those of you who are looking at the picture of the prison cell and asking why it looks so nice, as someone pointed it the focus of Norway's prison system is to rehabilitate the prisoners so they can be reintegrated into society not merely punish them. This is one of the reasons that Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world and is a great example on why the justice/prison system in the US is in dire need of an overhaul.

    2) To all of you who are for the death penalty, how many of you actually watched the episode of Penn & Tellers Bullshit about the death penalty that was linked twice in this thread (which I post in every discussion about the death penalty I take part of) If you have not watched it, please do so.

    3) How many of you (especially those of you who are for the death penalty) have actually spent any amount of time within a jail/prison? No, knowing someone who did and/or visiting one doesn't count. I mean you yourself, personally, have spent time imprisoned and/or confined after being arrested and processed within a jail/prison.

    The US justice system operates on the idea of retribution, where instead of trying to prevent the problem from happening we wait for it to happen and strike down after the fact rather than taking steps to reduce the chance of it happening (similar to our approach to health care, ba-zing!) The fact of the matter is, if you support the death penalty you support murder, plain and simple. It doesn't matter how you justify it, carrying out the death penalty is murdering another human being. If the sentence is carried out on someone who was wrongfully convicted (it does happen, and in fact it's quite possible it's even MORE common that we know as many are reluctant to re-open a case where the criminal was executed to verify that yes, they were indeed innocent since it's more prudent to focus on ones where the defendant is still alive) then that person will have been killed in cold blood. By supporting the death penalty you are accepting the fact that we, as a society through our justice system, will sometimes murder innocent civilians via our court of laws.

    Some of you have used the argument of "well when someone you love/know is murdered/raped/etc you may feel differently!" but did you flip that around? What about when someone you know/love is wrongfully convicted and executed? What do you do? They were a murder victim, only they were murdered in the name of justice for the good of society, legally. There is no way to bring them back.

    The difference between sentencing someone to life in prison and executing them is, if you wrongfully convict them you can release them. If you execute them, that's it. There's no going back on that. Some of you have said that "money can't make up for time lost while in prison" and to a degree that's true. But I'm willing to bet that if you asked ANY of the people who were on death row later to be released when they were found innocent because they were wrongfully convicted I will bet that ALL of them will say they would rather spend 10/20/30/40+ years on death row only to be released and maybe even receive monetary compensation rather than being executed and being dead. Yes, you missed out on a lot, lost years that you won't be able to get back. However, you will still have the rest of your life to live, you'll still be able to spend the rest of your days living your life. Your family will be able to spend time with you before you die. You won't get back the years you lost or the memories that you missed out on, but you will have a chance to spend the rest of your years around those you love/care for building new memories. If you're executed that's it. There's no going back on it and your family and loved ones will now have to spend the rest of their lives knowing that you should not have died. They'll have to live with the fact that you would still be alive, but you won't be because your own government decided that retribution and punishment was more important than human life.

    That is why I am 100% opposed to it.

    Here are some fun links that coincide to some degree with what I was saying (plus other fun stuff that is also funny)

    http://www.cracked.com/article_18385...to-movies.html

    http://www.cracked.com/article_19489...-problems.html

  9. #229
    Quote Originally Posted by Brubear View Post
    (...)The fact of the matter is, if you support the death penalty you support murder, plain and simple. It doesn't matter how you justify it, carrying out the death penalty is murdering another human being. (...)
    You assume that the murderer in question (assuming total, 100% undeniable guilt) should have rights as a human being, after having taken away the life (and violating the rights of) another human being.

  10. #230
    How so, murder is taking the life of another human being. No matter how vile someone is, they are still a human being. Whether we feel they deserve to be treated as one or not doesn't change the fact that they still are, in actuality, a human being. Therefore, if you support capital punishment then you support our government murdering another human being. You can try to justify it by saying that the moment they took another persons life/raped someone/etc they lost their rights of a human being and that is your belief, but that still doesn't change the fact that you support intentionally killing another human being, which would be murder (and pre-meditated at that)

    Also, Jasyn. Did you watch the Penn & Teller episode that was linked (since that's the part of my post you focused on)?

  11. #231
    some people gots to die. You go around raping and killing and chopping people up with chainsaws, there's not much hope for redemption for you. They'll never be suitable to go into society and it's better to kill them than to let them sit in a cell and plot to escape.

  12. #232
    Quote Originally Posted by Brubear View Post
    How so, murder is taking the life of another human being. No matter how vile someone is, they are still a human being. Whether we feel they deserve to be treated as one or not doesn't change the fact that they still are, in actuality, a human being. Therefore, if you support capital punishment then you support our government murdering another human being. You can try to justify it by saying that the moment they took another persons life/raped someone/etc they lost their rights of a human being and that is your belief, but that still doesn't change the fact that you support intentionally killing another human being, which would be murder (and pre-meditated at that)

    Also, Jasyn. Did you watch the Penn & Teller episode that was linked (since that's the part of my post you focused on)?
    The definition of murder is "the unlawful killing of another human being." Key term being "unlawful."


    Edit - No I didn't watch it. Their opinions are usually extremely biased and ridiculous, but that's a discussion for another place.

    Edit2 - Still haven't watched it, but I read some articles regarding the episode. What they're saying is irrelevant to any of my arguments.
    Last edited by Jasyn; 2012-02-21 at 07:09 PM.

  13. #233
    Quote Originally Posted by Istaril View Post
    Completely against it in every way, shape and form. If you take a life when a life has been taken, that's not justice, it's just revenge.
    What if I hold someone against their will for a long period of time? What is the punishment for that? Being jailed and held against your will? lol Sounds like revenge.

    I am from Washington State, in the United States, and I think capital punishment should be open to other crimes such as rape, child molestation and significant white collar crimes such as those committed by Bernie Madoff, who swindled people out of six billion dollars.

    ---------- Post added 2012-02-21 at 07:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Brubear View Post
    How so, murder is taking the life of another human being. No matter how vile someone is, they are still a human being. Whether we feel they deserve to be treated as one or not doesn't change the fact that they still are, in actuality, a human being.
    What is your point exactly? Just because they are a human being means what?
    Last edited by Photoshopped; 2012-02-21 at 07:08 PM.

  14. #234
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Brubear View Post
    -snip- [/url]
    Do, you say that killing anyone is unacceptable, regardless of the murderer having killed themselves, maybe even multiple murders? Really...? Really?

    Execution of them -prevents- them from causing even more harm! The victim's family, friends are suffering. They have demoted themselves from 'human being' status, so they don't deserve the courtesy of being let alive after what they did.

    It does -not- mean that it should be flung around like confetti, it should be used for proven, irredeemable offenders. Not that BS 230 years or whatever in prison.

  15. #235
    Quote Originally Posted by Istaril View Post
    Who gets to decide whether they've improved or not?

    If it's anyone except the courts, there would be complete outrage. If it is the courts, you're wasting millions of dollars and excessive amounts of time trying to decide whether someone has 'Improved', ambiguous a statement that is, over time.
    You would be right, but you forgot one thing:

    Personaly i find that capital punishment right off the bat is too fast, some of the people that commited murder can repent, and there are also innocent people that were wrongfully convicted. Which is why i say there should be a period of 5 to 10 years before taking the decision of giving the death sentence. The prisoners would have to go to the court, or see a proffessional to know if he can repent or not. If he doesn't show the will to repent, he gets executed.

    You say that this would take time and money? agreed, but do you know how much it costs for a prisoner to be kept in jail? over a hundred thousand bucks per year, per prisonner.

    So after that 5-10 year period, the person goes to court, then he is either executed, which will end the fees for keeping him over the years. If the person can repent, that person will just remain a dozen more years in jail and will be able to go out afterward.

    Time and money has been saved.

    Of course the most money and time saving solution is to send every murderer to the chair, but that would mean that you'll kill innocent people and people with the will to repent too.

  16. #236
    mur·der   [mur-der] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

    It is the killing of another human being when certain conditions have been met. If it were merely the unlawful killing of another human being than that could open us up to all sorts of legal issues.

    Whether they are biased or not, they do raise and address quite a few excellent points on the matter. I've watched episodes of their show that I disagreed with (like the one about karate and they found the most outlandish and space-cadet tai-chi instructor they could find) but I still was able to look past the hyperbole and sensationalism to the points they raised, which were valid. In this instance especially I would recommend watching this episode.

  17. #237
    Wow. This garbage hit 12 pages quick...

    So, the primary arguments AGAINST capital punishment seem to be:

    1) You cannot be 100% sure of someone's guilt.

    2) What if you execute someone and find out later you were wrong?

    3) Prison sentences can be reversed. Death cannot.

    All three of these are really very similar, but let us put a slight spin on each. I'm not changing the context whatsoever, just flipping the coin (or looking at the Yang):

    1) You cannot be 100% sure of someone's innocence.

    2) What if you choose to free someone who was guilty and they kill someone else?

    3) The innocent person could be killed in prison or could die of old age if NOT reversed. And if it is reversed at some point, was it any less wrong to convict them in the first place?

    I have to ask - what is the problem with death? People are dying everyday by the thousands. Maybe not next door, maybe not in your city, but the world is losing people for countless reasons. African nations and middle-eastern nations are constantly at war. We have to be realistic when we look at the human race and say "We are a war-like species". We are barbaric. We've become more civilized over the centuries, but we will always be barbaric at the core. Murders are commited everyday for exactly this reason.

    Now my opinions of the reasons stated above:

    1) You ABSOLUTELY can be 100% certain of someone's guilt.

    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner

    - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik

    There is no "alleging" in these cases. They did it. Period. And these are just two of the recent ones. There are many others out there. Capital punishment would always (I would say "almost always" personally) be reserved for cases such as these. If there is doubt for the conviction, then putting people to death is certainly risky.

    2) This is trickier, but it just sounds like a cop out to me. This relies more on our justice system being improved to make more accurate calls. The first change that needs to happen is any and all evidence should be required as admissable, regardless of how it is obtained. There have been countless cases of evidence being inadmissable due to the nature in which it was discovered and numerous others where evidence failed to get turned over, etc. This kind of shit needs to stop. Evidence is evidence and is vital to making a proper decision.

    3) Before being exonerated from Death Row, the average time spent there was 9.8 years according to DeathPenaltyInfo. That's quite a bit of leeway before putting a needle in their arm. How much time do you think they should have to enter new evidence? Again, it's a justice system issue, not one for capital punishment. If you have something to say or evidence to speak of, get it out there before the trial is over.

    Also according to that website, over 1000 people have been put to death in the U.S. since 1976. Only a handful of those (less than 20) seem to have had strong evidence of innocence. Granted, we don't have much knowledge on how many of those executed may have actually been innocent, but either way the statement "many, many innocent people have been executed" is just bad form and incorrect.

    -Judge

  18. #238
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Jersovic View Post
    Off-Topic, but I've always suspected that the Holocaust being so close to home likely impacted Europe's decision to largely abolish the practice of Capital Punishment.
    They didn't change it directly after the end of WW2. They first hunted collaborators for years (late 80's/ mid 90's) to prosecute and execute them (like a witch-hunt). They still had a different system to prosecute high crimes besides the collaboration, but an occasional execution of criminals wasn't rare. The holocaust wasn't the reason, humanism was. Various liberalism, socialism, democratic influenced parties wanted a reformed punishment system.


    ON TOPIC:

    I am against capital punishment, (death by) slavery sounds a bit like a harder punishment. Forcing criminals to work to benefit the poor with products the gov'n sells (partly processed by criminals, end product by gov'n facilities) to the poor for very low prices.

    ^ I proposed this idea to the ministry of Justice a while ago. It was also my bachelor case. I got good points but lots of critics from pussies and softies.
    Last edited by mmoc058e0f1fe5; 2012-02-21 at 07:27 PM.

  19. #239
    Quote Originally Posted by Brubear View Post
    mur·der   [mur-der] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

    It is the killing of another human being when certain conditions have been met. If it were merely the unlawful killing of another human being than that could open us up to all sorts of legal issues.

    Whether they are biased or not, they do raise and address quite a few excellent points on the matter. I've watched episodes of their show that I disagreed with (like the one about karate and they found the most outlandish and space-cadet tai-chi instructor they could find) but I still was able to look past the hyperbole and sensationalism to the points they raised, which were valid. In this instance especially I would recommend watching this episode.
    Google "murder definition" - your one definition that leaves out "unlawful" is literally surrounded by half a dozen definitions that use "unlawful." You can't cherry pick facts to support your own conclusions. You need to look at the big picture.
    Last edited by Jasyn; 2012-02-21 at 07:28 PM.

  20. #240
    Oh and Brubear, I have seen that episode of P&T:BS. I've seen them all. And I LOVE that show. Some of the greatest pieces of entertainment I've ever seen. I still don't agree with their stance (probably the writers' stance, not P&T's, but still) on that particular issue. I do rather enjoy their stance on PETA though.

    -Judge

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •