Jump to content
Science Forums

Capital Punishment: Is it right?


LJP07

Do you think Capital Punishment is acceptable?  

1 member has voted

  1. 1. Do you think Capital Punishment is acceptable?

    • Yes
      12
    • No
      16


Recommended Posts

If a repeat offender is allowed to go free by our justice system, who is at fault when he kills again?

 

 

Well, first of all, I have mentioned many a time where I think that there should be a change in the justice system as regards punishment for criminals, that reform in my opinion doesn't include Capital Punishment.

 

Who is at fault? The justice system is at fault, there are just some people in society that are too dangerous to have around, however, not eliminate by their own crimes. These people need to be punished in a manner that's not yet introduced by the justice system, therefore, I would welcome new suggestions in this thread regarding Capital Punishment a new form of punishment for these type of criminals. Although some may argue:

 

1. What separates one criminal from another?

2. That all criminals are equal in terms of criminality?

 

It can be possible to distinguish that some who commits fraud is not a murderer and other deductions can be made to finalise the new laws. However, this is all hypothetical but one of the points of this thread is to get other peoples opinions on the punishments of Capital Punishment.

 

I would therefore like to add a new question to peoples replies:

 

" If it was decided Capital Punishment was done away with, what general new punishment should repeat offenders or first-time offenders recieve, this new punishment would apply towards murders, sexual assaults etc "

 

I have also included a poll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, first of all, I have mentioned many a time where I think that there should be a change in the justice system as regards punishment for criminals, that reform in my opinion doesn't include Capital Punishment.

 

Who is at fault? The justice system is at fault, there are just some people in society that are too dangerous to have around, however, not eliminate by their own crimes. These people need to be punished in a manner that's not yet introduced by the justice system, therefore, I would welcome new suggestions in this thread regarding Capital Punishment a new form of punishment for these type of criminals. Although some may argue:

 

1. What separates one criminal from another?

2. That all criminals are equal in terms of criminality?

 

It can be possible to distinguish that some who commits fraud is not a murderer and other deductions can be made to finalise the new laws. However, this is all hypothetical but one of the points of this thread is to get other peoples opinions on the punishments of Capital Punishment.

 

I would therefore like to add a new question to peoples replies:

 

" If it was decided Capital Punishment was done away with, what general new punishment should repeat offenders or first-time offenders recieve, this new punishment would apply towards murders, sexual assaults etc "

 

I have also included a poll.

I voted yes, but that's actually assuming an effective, reliable, and fair legal system which is capable of determining who the 'hard cases' are without any errors. So, I think I just changed my mind since I live in the US.

 

And as an alternative punishment, I suggest slave labor so we can compete economically in the global market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, I understand your point but I don't think it's logical enough for everyone. Murderers don't think about losing, they only think of succeeding and ' getting away with it '. Their so confident in this that they commit the crime. While few cases may be exemplary to this point, it's for the majority of cases, in which your statement just can't be right.

 

The protection from the murderer is by imprisonment, that's the entire point of it, if some escape or whatever, then that's the fault of the prison for not having adequate protection, but for the vast majority of cases, it works splendidly. How is Capital Punishment a great form of protection, you didn't give your reasons and I can't logically think as to why?

Even prisoners have the right to be safe from murderers. There are people who when placed in any population will kill other people for trivial reasons. No person should be killed for triviality. The only way to protect people from such individuals is to kill them. We spend billions of dollars protecting prisoners from one another, and imposing rules of behavior that are not conducive to rehabilitation. The efforts in prisons have been admirable where the murder rate, despite what OZ may indicate, is actually lower than on the outside. But how much better could we do in rehabilitating hopeful prisoners, and how much less could we spend in total if we didn't have to treat all prisoners as though they are the worst prisoner. One way to do that is to weed them out and kill them. Another would be to isolate them to prisons built just for worst offenders. But there are still some people who cannot be changed and death is the only cure.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there are still some people who cannot be changed and death is the only cure.

 

Bill

 

Bill

Absolutely BigDog, and if we compare our struggle with the crime of murder, as to that of fighting a war, one needs to understand that to win the battle, the adversary must be totally defeated or killed. And to quote one very famous General, "There is no substitute for victory".................Infy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I voted yes it is a qualified yes vote. For someone who has acted in the heat of passion I would not support the death penalty. For someone who is truely mentally ill I would not support the death penalty. If a conviction is based on circumstancial evidence I would not support the death penalty. For those who commit terribly cruel or multiple murders with eyewitness or DNA evidence proves guilt then I would support the death penalty. Saddam and Ted Bundy fit this limited use of the death penalty..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I voted yes it is a qualified yes vote. For someone who has acted in the heat of passion I would not support the death penalty. For someone who is truely mentally ill I would not support the death penalty. If a conviction is based on circumstancial evidence I would not support the death penalty. For those who commit terribly cruel or multiple murders with eyewitness or DNA evidence proves guilt then I would support the death penalty. Saddam and Ted Bundy fit this limited use of the death penalty..
These are good points Freddy, I suspect the majority would agree with your position on these questions........................Infy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those who commit terribly cruel or multiple murders with eyewitness or DNA evidence proves guilt then I would support the death penalty. Saddam and Ted Bundy fit this limited use of the death penalty..

In the past I have always supported the death penalty for such types as well but, it now costs the people, us, tenfold or more to actually get someone to the death chamber as it does to simply feed them for the rest of their life. I now believe it's just not worth the expense, especially when we're the one's paying for both the prosecution and the public defender. Why should we waste our money on these lowlife's when our tax dollars could be put to positive use elsewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why should we waste our money on these lowlife's when our tax dollars could be put to positive use elsewhere?

 

I think Bill would say money well spent and you get what you pay for, anyway I am on the fence as regards Ted Bundy and Saddam Hussein argument. One side is saying " It's not moral, not right and hypocritical ", the other side is saying " For such cruel deliberate continuous crimes, should these people be allowed to go free even after 20 years, the answer is no, therefore should they be put out of their misery!? ", I'm not sure as for a person against the Death Penalty, it would be difficult for me to say a certain group of people deserve it and other first-time murderers don't deserve it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For such cruel deliberate continuous crimes, should these people be allowed to go free even after 20 years, the answer is no, therefore should they be put out of their misery!? "

They should never go free but that doesn't mean as taxpayers that we should spend millions on the appeals process to get them to the death chamber when we could feed them with thousands for the rest of their natural life. Lock them up and throw away the key, literally. For some, this would even be more punishment than killing them anyhow!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lock them up and throw away the key, literally. For so this would even be more punishment than killing them anyhow!

 

Excellent post as usual Clay, it re-affirms my position that this Capital Punishment is wrong to every extent, through and through.

 

I just hope this thread has also re-affirmed some of our other members that it's wrong in every case imaginable.

 

So, the idea raised is that we, as taxpayers, should not waste our money on killing, instead throw them in jail for eternity, sound good to me, but what do the ' Capital Punishment ' supporters think of this concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we can manage to convict the right people, I say what the hell. C1ay has a point. But then so does Bill. They should be in solitary confinement so they can't even kill other prisoners.

 

They both have a point but Bill's is not moral.

 

I agree that they should be insolitary confinement, I think this would be a better spend of taxpayers money in the long run, effective punishment and is moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They both have a point but Bill's is not moral.

 

I agree that they should be insolitary confinement, I think this would be a better spend of taxpayers money in the long run, effective punishment and is moral.

Are the moral issue of keeping someone in solitary confinement for the rest of their life less daunting that the prospect of ending their life?

 

A man is in solitary confinement for life. He gets cancer. Do we treat it, or just give him pain medication to keep him comfortable? He needs a transplant. Does he get on the list, or do we just let his organs fail? He needs glasses, do we test him and make some, or do we let him squint? He is mutilating himself, do we restrain him and force him to remain alive, or do we let him continue?

 

Keep in mind that I don't think that Capital Punishment should be a widespread solution. And I certainly am aware of the costs associated with putting people to death.

 

I used to like the idea of a prison called "pergatory" where people go in, but they don't come out. For all intents and purposes the inmates there are dead to the outside world, and known only as numbers on the inside. Trouble is that it would be so notorious for the people going in that we would be held as the biggest human rights violator in the world for all the rumors about what life in the prison is actually like. Even if we did nothing wrong, we would be held wrong in the eyes of people who simply hate the justice system because they feel that nobody should actually be punished.

 

There are complications with treating people like they are dead. What if a person in that prison has information that may help a defendant on another case? Does that end their solitary confinement while they give testimony, or are they unavailable for someone else's defense? There is no good solution with the worst people in society. Killing them ends worry and cost. Reducing the cost to get to that end, without sacrificing the due diligence that goes into review of the cases and facts is what is called for. Not elimination of the process because we have let those opposed to it turn it into a nightmare to actually make happen.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the real benefit of killing someone? Does it make the world a safer place? If we were able to hold these people so that they could never kill again, then the death penalty actually makes the world less safe - if even one innocent person is put to death, it has been unproductive. If, however, the prison systems are corrupt, and are liable to put murderers, rapists, and other violent criminals back on the streets, then the death penalty becomes more appealing. In the US, our prison system is quite good, I think that the death penalty is rather unnecessary. It doesn't act as a good deterent, it doesn't allow for a person to ever be productive, and it costs more than simply keeping them alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Southtown, Moral is defined as follows:

 

Table of Morality

 

1. Of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

2. Expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.

3. Founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

4. Capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.

5. Conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.

6. Virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.

7. Of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.

8. Resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.

9. The moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.

10. The embodiment or type of something.

11. Morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

 

Where Points 1 and 11 pertain truth in respects, I understand that other points may make me contradict myself, however, when I said Moral I was regarding Points 1 and 11 on the table of Morality.

 

I'd rather not have this discussion go on a talk about Morality, a whole thread could go on about that with in excess of 100 posts it would be that interesting, but this discussion is about Capital Punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...