1
   

Capital Punishment --- For or Against?

 
 
baddog1
 
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 09:25 am
Are you for or against the traditional method of capital punishment?

[Caveat: This thread is only about CP; not proof of guilt/innocence - which should be a separate topic. In other words: Said person has been found guilty of a crime such as murder, rape, etc. by our judicial system and no more appeals are available...] You are deciding if guilty person should be killed - or not...

If for CP - why?

If against CP - why?

If against CP - what (if anything) should happen to those convicted?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 14,051 • Replies: 428
No top replies

 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 09:34 am
No, no, and no - capital punishment doesn't solve anything.
As the crime statistics reveal, no criminal is deterred by the threat of
capital punishment. I think, the 3-strikes-and-you're-out regulation is
much more effective for die-hard criminals.
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 09:43 am
In principle I am all for capital punishment. People that perpetrate harm on society should be swiftly eliminated from it, in my opinion. Murderers, rapists, child molesters, and pat robertson just don't deserve to live.

However, in the US capital punishment represents too much bureaucracy. The appeals and subsequent red tape, not to mention the possible decades of solitary confinement and special security and treatment on death row, for 1 inmate, costs more than keeping 5 inmates behind bars for life in general population.

In practice it isn't effective or efficient.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 10:18 am
CalamityJane wrote:
No, no, and no - capital punishment doesn't solve anything.


OK - what would the best solution be?

Quote:
As the crime statistics reveal, no criminal is deterred by the threat of capital punishment. I think, the 3-strikes-and-you're-out regulation is much more effective for die-hard criminals.


I've read stats and testimonials both ways on CP. The 3-strikes reg is still fairly new - can you share your thoughts on how that would work instead of CP?


Dok:
Would you believe that we are in total agreement about this subject? :wink: Every single point you make is IMHO precisely accurate!
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 10:28 am
Quote:

Dok:
Would you believe that we are in total agreement about this subject? Wink Every single point you make is IMHO precisely accurate!

Yes, Pat Robertson must die. Just not via capital punishment Wink
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 10:30 am
I would be for Capital Punishment for people who committed heinous, multiple, senseless murders like Jeffrey Dahmer or Clifford Olson, pedophile-extraordinaire.

I don't think they deserve to live while the families live without their loved one.

And why should the State waste money keeping him/her alive? What's the benefit to anyone?
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 10:38 am
Hi mame. As I mentioned, it costs more in the US to keep one inmate on death row, complete with mandatory appeals etc, than it does to keep 5 inmates in genpop for life.

I have read a few separate research papers on this, but I don't know of any online.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 10:46 am
Mame wrote:
...And why should the State waste money keeping him/her alive? What's the benefit to anyone?


Attorneys - and judges - who are also attorneys! Confused
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 10:47 am
You know what's really galling? Here in Canada, inmates are allowed to take university courses for free. They are the only ones that can do that. The victims of their crimes get nothing. We, the population, get to benefit from educated criminals.
0 Replies
 
Shellgame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 11:07 am
The problem with CP for me is that by the time it happens, it is so far removed from the crime it's hard to imagine it being a deterent. I also have a problem with providing them housing, food, recreation, education, etc. at our expense only to kill them after 15-20 years.

Hopefully, we will be finished with Guantanimo soon.

Those that would normally be sent to death row could be sent there with a few seeds, and a basic camping set. Guards could be posted around the complex, but otherwise, it would be survival of the fittest. They could either work together to grow a garden to feed themselves, negotiate various responsibilities around the camp, etc. or kill each other.

Those that survive, show leadership through appropriate behavior (not ordering deaths) and show signs of understanding how to live in a society and be productive, could be transferred to a regular prison if there is a chance they are finally "getting it."

Just my opinion of a great option that saves money.

(Mount cameras and make it Pay Per View and we could cover their court costs and pay the guards to boot)
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 11:10 am
I'm afraid Capital Punishment has been shown not to be a deterrent. That's not why I would agree with it, anyway. My reasons have nothing to do with future murderers.
0 Replies
 
flushd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 11:24 am
Mame wrote:
You know what's really galling? Here in Canada, inmates are allowed to take university courses for free. They are the only ones that can do that. The victims of their crimes get nothing. We, the population, get to benefit from educated criminals.


That gets to me too, Mame. Free university courses, given a job, work-out facilities, good food, some offer top-notch therapists/sweat lodges/spiritual council : free living basically!

.........

I am against Capital Punishment. No government should have the legal power to kill any human being.

There should be more measures for the people to seek justice on a personal basis. As it stands, the justice system rapes as many victims as it punishes criminals. It basically sucks ass.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 11:27 am
I agree with Mame that there are certain people -- serial killers, pedophiles/murderers, those who torture prior to killing etc. etc. -- who simply do not deserve to be kept alive. In a sense, it is for their own good that they are eliminated from society. I think the problem arises when we speak of capital "punishment." To simply put these people out of their misery (and the misery they cause for others) should not be thought of as punishment. It is more on the order of euthanasia. Once it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that a person such as this is beyond any chance of rehabilitation, that person should simply be executed in the most humane manner possible. Call it "guilty by reason of insanity."

However, I also agree with CJ that anyone who thinks capital punishment is in some way a deterrent is simply deluding oneself. The statistics clearly show this not to be so. There is no difference in the per-capita murder rates between states that do and those that do not have capital punishment. As a deterrent, it simply doesn't work.

There are those, of course, who will say that anyone who wantonly takes a human life should be prepared to suffer the consequences of losing one's own life. OK. If you're prepard to admit that your only justification for capital punishment is vengeance, then perhaps you'd be willing to go back to a pre-industrial society scenario where vengeance was lawfully exacted by the injured party, without interference from the state. I find it ironic that the state today kills people as a lesson to all that killing people is wrong.

And there is the moral conundrum, of course. Is the executioner morally less guilty of homicide than the convicted felon whom that executioner executes? As Hamlet said to Horatio, chew on that.
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 11:41 am
I don't support capitol punishment for several reasons. First, more money is spent by the state/federal gov't by keeping a prisoner on death's row(appeals, etc) than if they were given life without parole.

Second, When a person is executed, nothing is ever learned about the nature of such crimes. Our prison system is said to have three objectives:

1. retribution
2. deterrent
3. rehabilitation.

Rehabilitation certainly does NOT work as we know now the high rate of recetivism. As many have noted, it is NOT a deterrent, and the eye for eye type punishment is impotent as well.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 11:53 am
for it. needs to be made cheaper though. an immediate 3 cent bullet to the head.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 12:01 pm
Merry Andrew wrote:
...There are those, of course, who will say that anyone who wantonly takes a human life should be prepared to suffer the consequences of losing one's own life. OK. If you're prepard to admit that your only justification for capital punishment is vengeance, then perhaps you'd be willing to go back to a pre-industrial society scenario where vengeance was lawfully exacted by the injured party, without interference from the state. I find it ironic that the state today kills people as a lesson to all that killing people is wrong.


I believe it would be more accurate histiorically to say that the state took the right for retribution away from the victim in exchange formaking it an obligation of the state - subject ti judicial procedure & review.

Quote:
.And there is the moral conundrum, of course. Is the executioner morally less guilty of homicide than the convicted felon whom that executioner executes? As Hamlet said to Horatio, chew on that.
You imply a very curioous view of morality. In most moral concepts the intent and motivation of the perpetrator is a significant, often defining factor. Clearly the actions of a soldier in a just war, or those of an executioner carrying out the judgement of a court enforcing established law are profoundly different in their moral meaning than those of one who kills in a robbery or sexual assault. If you are unable to find moral distinctions in these actions, then perhaps we have nothing to discuss.

Certainly capitol punishment carried out as it is today -- put off by years of appeals, review, bureaucratic delay and even political timidity, so that its eventual occurrence is unlikely -- is no deterrent. Forty plus years ago in this country and in Western Europe execution was carried out generally within weeks of the sentence. I suspect that indeed had significant deterrent value. One can easily befuddle willing minds with selective sampling and biased statistics, but common sense tells us otherwise.

Those who oppose capitol punishment should reflect on the purpose of its alternative - perpetual imprisionment. Clearly reform of the individual perpetrator is not the object of this punishment: the object is vengence at the hands of the state. Indeed one would be very hard pressed to demonstrate any efficacy of our prisions in achieving reform of those who don;t choose it themselves, even for lesser sentences. Those who accept the (usually biased) statistical demonstrations of the lack of deterrent effect of capitol punishment for murder should also consider the statistical indicators for the deterrent effect of imprisionment for lesser crimes such as drug dealing and theft.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 12:48 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
for it. needs to be made cheaper though. an immediate 3 cent bullet to the head.


Good one Bear!!! Laughing
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 12:48 pm
Absolutely against.

The State should not have that right. (If you want someone dead, do it yourself.)

I am in favor of keeping violent criminals (and ONLY violent criminals) locked-up, indefinitely.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 01:00 pm
echi wrote:
Absolutely against.

The State should not have that right. (If you want someone dead, do it yourself.)

I am in favor of keeping violent criminals (and ONLY violent criminals) locked-up, indefinitely.


How do you define "violent"? How much of it is sufficient for a life sentence?

Hard to see this as an improvement to justice.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 01:02 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Those who oppose capitol punishment should reflect on the purpose of its alternative - perpetual imprisionment. Clearly reform of the individual perpetrator is not the object of this punishment: the object is vengence at the hands of the state. Indeed one would be very hard pressed to demonstrate any efficacy of our prisions in achieving reform of those who don;t choose it themselves, even for lesser sentences. Those who accept the (usually biased) statistical demonstrations of the lack of deterrent effect of capitol punishment for murder should also consider the statistical indicators for the deterrent effect of imprisionment for lesser crimes such as drug dealing and theft.


I don't think anything works as a deterrent. I disagree that "the object [of perpetual imprisonment] is vengence at the hands of the state"... I think it's to keep a dangerous person away from society.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Capital Punishment --- For or Against?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/16/2019 at 05:58:38