1
   

Capital Punishment --- For or Against?

Forums: Spirituality And Religion, Philosophy, Debate, Capital Punishment, Law
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 01:05 pm
Mame wrote:

... 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.


Hard to argue with questions of intent. However, there are cheaper and less unpleasant ways of merely keeping such persons out of circulation for a while.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 01:09 pm
Such as?

And if it's vengence, as you suggest, why are they fed three squares of good food, get free education, have tv, smoking, visiting privileges, not to mention conjugal rights, etc etc etc? Doesn't sound too vengeful to me! Sounds like a right party.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 01:09 pm
Re: Capital Punishment --- For or Against?
baddog1 wrote:
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...


I find it impossible to completely eliminate that from my answer, as one of the main objections I have to the death penalty is that people are found guilty of a crime such as murder, rape, etc. by our judicial system and no more appeals are available... and then it turns out (after they're been executed) that in fact they were innocent.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 02:27 pm
I am against CP - why because it is wrong to kill. Isn't that why this person is on death row in the first place? Do two wrongs make a right?

That being said - the individual should be punishment and miserable for the rest of their life. To me, it seems a worse punishment to imprison someone with very little while they remember the horrible crimes they committed. Killing them is too easy on them. As far as food - just enough to sustain them. Entertainment - again very little, perhaps books and some exercise to keep them sustained (something minimal like running and walking) and at least some sort of positive influence. No TV, no porn, no fun sports activities.

As far as the public paying to sustain them - forget that crap - they need to work for food, shelter, and basic toiletries same as they rest of society. I am even for them having to pay a percentage back to society to pay for their crime. A chain gang wouldn't be bad to implement.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 03:18 pm
I agree, Linkat. That's how it used to be and how it should be again.

However... killing sometimes happens in the name of the common good, as in war, or police situations. Obviously we'd rather they didn't happen, but if Japan bombs Pearl Harbour, the US will strike back. And if some crazy shite has 20 hostages in a bank, the SWAT team will take him out.

Otherwise, I'm in perfect agreement with you...esp about the chain gang Laughing
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 03:23 pm
Mame wrote:
I agree, Linkat. That's how it used to be and how it should be again.

However... killing sometimes happens in the name of the common good, as in war, or police situations. Obviously we'd rather they didn't happen, but if Japan bombs Pearl Harbour, the US will strike back. And if some crazy shite has 20 hostages in a bank, the SWAT team will take him out.

Otherwise, I'm in perfect agreement with you...esp about the chain gang Laughing


I think the difference is between the SWAT team and one who is already in jail - the person is in jail and therefore not an immediate threat - he is actually defenseless (which he should be) at this point. The hostage situation - the person(s) are currently a threat and not defenseless - actually at that point in time a threat - so in this case whatever force is necessary to keep the innocent safe is the most important. So in these situations - yes I agree with you - however - I wouldn't consider them capital punishment situations.
0 Replies
 
echi
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 03:28 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
How do you define "violent"? How much of it is sufficient for a life sentence?


(Thanks. I should clarify that, some.)

By "violent", I mean to describe someone who is known to have caused physical injury, or someone who poses such a threat.
The length of imprisonment should correspond to the threat; sentencing should err, heavily, on the side of public safety.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 03:28 pm
No, I think CP should only be for people who commit heinous murders for no rational reason whatsoever, as in the Dahmer case, or the Clifford Olson case (pedophile) - people who would kill anyone for no reason. You can't predict or rehabilitate them. They're sick and a total waste of oxygen.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 03:44 pm
Mame wrote:
No, I think CP should only be for people who commit heinous murders for no rational reason whatsoever, as in the Dahmer case, or the Clifford Olson case (pedophile) - people who would kill anyone for no reason. You can't predict or rehabilitate them. They're sick and a total waste of oxygen.


I agree with your assessment of them, however, I do not believe in killing unless to defend oneself - in a sense that is saying a life.

I agree that are of no use to rehabilitate and should NEVER leave prison - force them to work in horrible situations and at least repay some money back to society. Make their life a living hell - basic food (tasteless) to keep them alive and working HARD. Killing them is too easy on them - making the rest of their life miserable is a worse situation for them.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 03:50 pm
Make the food tasteless - yes, that would be hell! lol Laughing
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 03:53 pm
Mame wrote:
Make the food tasteless - yes, that would be hell! lol Laughing


Better than that - have my dad cook for them! When we were kids my youngest brother refused to eat my father's cooking - he thought it caused our other brother to get appendicitis. (And is cooking is worse than tasteless).
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 03:56 pm
Mame wrote:
Make the food tasteless - yes, that would be hell! lol Laughing


I think the ordering of my comments didn't make sense - meant the living hell as being forced to work hard with little else for time - besides sleep and basic bland food - basically no comforts whatsoever.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 04:00 pm
Either way, I agree - make them sweat their butts off working on the chain gang, eat crappy food, live in solitary confinement, no diversions (radio, tv, books, papers), and have to sleep on a crappy mattress Smile

Love it.

Oh, and your dad can cook for them if he wants Laughing
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 04:02 pm
Mame wrote:


Oh, and your dad can cook for them if he wants Laughing


Good! Something to keep him busy as he is now retired - Now that would be a deterrent!
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 04:05 pm
LOL Laughing But would it be considered cruel and unusual punishment? lol
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 06:14 pm
Absolutely against.

The State does not have the right. (thanks echi)

I am equally appalled for the victim of the murder (the criminal) as I am for the murderers (the executioner we pay to do it for us, the judges who pass the sentence, the voters who elect to continue the practice).

I've never understood why punishment seems so divided between relatively humane treatment in jail....or death.

I would rather see (note: not support) castration of rapists, cut the hands off a murderer. Sure these are brutal and not pretty to witness in our society, but from the criminals point-of-view, better than absolute oblivion.

I think supporting the death penalty is easier for those who think something happens after death...heaven, judgement, balancing of wrongs, facing gods, doing penance, whatever. But if this life is all there is (and there is NO evidence to the contrary), how dare anyone presume to take one?

In the case of a woman who has killed 3 people, how does her additional death make things right?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 06:16 pm
If a person is 100% guilty, and so proven, I have no regard for that person's life. I am totally opposed to the death penalty, however. All too often, mistakes are made, and the innocent dies. Not only mistakes, but the prosecution often has an agenda and railroads someone. It is just as effective to imprison someone as to execute someone.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 07:07 pm
edgarblythe wrote:
If a person is 100% guilty, and so proven, I have no regard for that person's life. I am totally opposed to the death penalty, however. All too often, mistakes are made, and the innocent dies. Not only mistakes, but the prosecution often has an agenda and railroads someone. It is just as effective to imprison someone as to execute someone.


and, insofar, also cheaper.

for myself, even if person is 100% guilty and i have no personal regard for his/her life, it still does not give me a right to take away his/her life. for, what does that make me? call itwhat you want, it's a murder, too. vendetta. not much different from the mob vendetta in principle, really.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 07:15 pm
Revenge should not be a part of law. It is a foot in the door to abuse of human rights.
0 Replies
 
Tico
 
  1  
Reply Wed 1 Nov, 2006 08:16 pm
Murder is murder, whether done by an individual or a state. When my state murders someone, it does so in my name as a citizen, thus making me a murderer. I would object to that. We all know that murder is wrong. It doesn't make it any more right if we all self-righteously nod our heads, dust our hands, designate someone to do it, claim a moral and pecuniary success.

Murder is murder. It is wrong.
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
Family files lawsuit against school over Jesus - Discussion by Baldimo
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Capital Punishment --- For or Against?
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/15/2025 at 09:01:53
▲ ▼