death penalty - Page 2 - TravelPUNK Backpacker College Student Budget Travel Message Boards!

**TimmyJames1976** · 02-24-2005, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by arbiter13@Feb 24 2005, 12:37 PM
Anyways, punishment.
I like to look at it this way. If someone murders someone else, and they are sentenced to life in a hellish prison, how much does it cost to keep that prison running? To keep them fed and keep the guards paid and safe? To maintain the facility? That's money (resources) being wasted. Kill them. Firing squad. None of this "swab of alcohol before a lethal injection" crap. Bullets are cheap. I like to look at it from a objective standpoint. They've committed a crime and must be removed from this plane of existence so they are not a threat to others.

As for what crimes deserve the death penalty...that is another story. I'm still working on that.

Financially it is actually cheaper to keep someone in prison for life then it is to execute them due to the various amounts of time and resources exhausted on legal issues (i.e. appeals, court time, rsearch and forensics, etc.) and it has been mathmatically proven many times over, but I too thought that execution was cheaper until I learned otherwise.

"Also, I must add that relative morality is one of the most fatal mistakes in history. " woohoo, someone finally agrees with me on that

**omisan** · 02-24-2005, 01:31 PM

I firmly believe in Death by Bongo Bongo.

**LostFarmboy** · 02-24-2005, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Statistics show that the death pentalty did not act as a deterrent at all. Murder rates often stay the same or even rise in places that have capital punishment

hahaha...they rise because the court system starts killing people too...

sorry, this is a serious topic, but it is kinda funny.

This is actually a bloody good topic, it's interesting to read everybody's deffering opinions. All this talk of relative and absolute morality is spot on, it makes it 'absolutely' impossible to decide whether or not the death penalty is a suitable punishment. I personally think that for VERY EXTREME circumstances is should be used, but who is to decide what these extreme circumstances are?? I also believe that KCL was spot on. If you go around using the death penalty willy nilly i think it would cause us to become somewhat desensitised to it, meaning that a jury would put less consideration into deciding whether or not a man lives or dies because its 'just another death panalty'. And I reckon that it would also lead to more murders as people become ok with ending a mans life if they think it is a just cause.

arbiter13 · 02-24-2005, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jakethepunk@Feb 24 2005, 03:43 PM
Ok fun times. First off careful there arbiter13 on dissing my God. There is a separate thread for that.

I was worried this would be interpreted the wrong way. I am an atheist but I do respect the faith of others...I tried to phrase it so it wouldn't come off that way. Basically, I meant the things that can be visibly seen and/or touched.

Mein bad.

As for the cost issue, I've seen that statistic and I was also proposing (although I eventually cut it out of my post) a streamlining of the system. Get to the killin' quicker, basically.

berwin · 02-24-2005, 07:17 PM

I strongly believe an Eye for an Eye. And I really hope that the Supreme Court keeps the death penalty as is. And keep it where the state can decide if they can execute a juvinile. I strongly believe that it should be droped down to 13 or 14. Because at that age, you know the difference between right and wrong. If a 14 year old kid can kill someone in cold blooded murder, then I think that they should pay for their actions. And I agree with who ever said that people against the death penalty would probably/might change their mind if someone close to them was murdered, might or might not though, just depends.
We talk about this kind of stuff all the time in my psych. class. I think the most depated issues right now in our country, and in other countries around the world are the Death Penalty, Gay Marriage, and Abortion. And personally i'm for all of them. For gay marriage, and abortion I think it is the persons right to do what ever they want to. The government shouldn't be able to interfear with peoples lives/bodies. (sorry if I kinda got of topic at the end of my post)

dimples · 02-24-2005, 07:22 PM

to put my two cents in....

I think to answer this question you have to know what you believe in, and i know some of you say DUH, but there are a lot of people out there who pass judgement or make decisions too hastily without actually thinking about what they believe. I'm not saying that that is any one of you, but thats what i think.

Now to actually answer the question, i believe that killing people to prove that killing people is wrong is very hypocritical! I think that the more death penalties are carried out, the more desensitized people get (a point many of you have brought up) but then once you've seen enough and are desensitized enough... and have a hormonally imbalanced day (not PMS type imbalance), and someone pisses you off enough, who's to say you wouldn't kill them because you felt you had a right to and it wasn't something that was that big of a deal anymore. Sorry if this doesn't make sense, i'm trying to get whats in my head on paper, it just doesn't always work...

**zylah** · 02-24-2005, 07:27 PM

If you can prove that someone absolutaly commited another murder then yes they should die. if for example (purely hypothetical) you have a politician who has decided to go to war with the aim of "liberating it" and this causes civilians to be killed. then that person should be put to death.

this of course would never happen in the real world

**LostFarmboy** · 02-24-2005, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Now to actually answer the question, i believe that killing people to prove that killing people is wrong is very hypocritical! I think that the more death penalties are carried out, the more desensitized people get (a point many of you have brought up) but then once you've seen enough and are desensitized enough... and have a hormonally imbalanced day (not PMS type imbalance), and someone pisses you off enough, who's to say you wouldn't kill them because you felt you had a right to and it wasn't something that was that big of a deal anymore. Sorry if this doesn't make sense, i'm trying to get whats in my head on paper, it just doesn't always work...

I absolutely agree with you, but think that it should still be used in very extreme circumstances, i just don't know what these circumstances are...

dimples · 02-24-2005, 07:33 PM

i can agree with very extreme circumstances. I just don't think that it should be every person who commits murder gets a death sentence. And i could go on and on about this, but i've said my thoughts.... that is until some one brings up another good point...

**kingcrazylegs** · 02-25-2005, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LostFarmboy@Feb 24 2005, 09:30 PM
I absolutely agree with you, but think that it should still be used in very extreme circumstances, i just don't know what these circumstances are...

The idea of "extreme circumstances" is great, but still leaves room for interpretation. I think many "heated" murders happen in someones mind "under extreme circumstances". I think it is thinking like this that get people in trouble in the first places. We (as a society) to often think we have it all figured out.

Having a death penalty law is extremely bogus, because it says that one human has the right and where-with-all to ULITAMETLY judge another human based on his/her actions and decide to end his/her life. It is simply a step to far in my mind. One of the main reasons we have a problem with murder in the first place is b/c someone has taken it upon themselves to end another's existence...that goes beyond the scope of our basic right to survive...but to turn around and do the same thing through capital punishment does exactly the same thing.

**jabad17** · 02-25-2005, 02:08 PM

Quote:

11. There is no right or wrong, but there are consequences. Moralizing doesn't help. Judgments only hold the patterns in place. Just do your best.

excellent quote, though I disagree with most of it. I believe in absolute morality, but I do not believe that we can know absolutely for certain what it is.

absolute morals are based on true reality. until we can know precisely what reality is we cannot use it as a base for morals. i do not believe that the human mind is capable of knowing true reality.

**beergal** · 03-03-2005, 04:59 AM

so all week i have been watching some shows on channel 4 concerning torture

man i cant believe the american penal system

what the fuck are those chairs that they use in arizona to restrain people and then they put a mesh bag over your head to stop you spitting

what the fuck is all this about spraying people with pepper gas just cos you feel like it!

check this site out!

torture

**expatben** · 10-25-2005, 02:15 AM

Without being disrepectfull I compleatly disagree with the death penalty. I think it is wrong to punish someone for murder by mudering them. If someone killed a member of my familuy I would hate them, with all the hate I am capable of and would want to see them rot in jail forever but I would not want them killed-why? Because that murderer has a family an innocent family and I would not make them suffer a loss that I had suffered because 1 man was a dirt bag.
Also I disagree for really bad crimes because who are we to say whats really bad? If we decide killing 100 people justifies the death penalty and I kill 99 does that mean that the I have not commited a worse crime and therefore its all OK and I don't qualify? Or do we change the rules when it suits us?
That, and the death penatly is irreversable and many innocent people have been killed.
As I say its all up to ones own morals and I hope I did not offend.
XPat

**bluepea** · 10-25-2005, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by expatben@Oct 25 2005, 01:15 AM
Without being disrepectfull I compleatly disagree with the death penalty.

Of course you didn't offend just by sharing your opinion!

That's what threads like this are for.

I was wondering (after the "explain yourself politically" thread) how people here felt about this, since it seemed that there were very few that were in support.

I do support the death penalty in cases of sex offenders and serial murderers - two groups of people who will never be rehabilitated or be productive members of society. I think for sex offenders, they should act a lot quicker on getting them and keeping them locked up, instead of this "five years for molesting a child" crap. I think the only reason I don't like the DP here is because of how costly it is and how long it takes to get the process completed. I think with severe crimes, then, I suppose as others have said, firing squad.

One reason I support this as opposed to life in prison is because there seem to be very few states that do 100% truth in sentencing, so a life sentence is no longer a life sentence.

I suppose I can't explain it based on morality or anything else, but when I think about people like that, I think they should be dead. I think they are sick and the world is a better place without them, even if they are behind bars. I don't know what this says about my level of morality; but oh well.

travelguy · 10-25-2005, 10:15 AM

eye for an eye

horsepuppy · 10-25-2005, 10:18 AM

Whoa...first off (while I won't get into it as much as others) I'll say that I'm against the death penalty - 2 wrongs don't make a right...trite, I know, but true nonetheless...the justice/penal system is in place to 1) punish the crime AND 2) rehabilitate, not JUST to punish the crime. This is not to say that everyone is capable of rehab (at least not in it's current/commonly accepted form), but it is necessary (unless there is a fool-proof way to decide who is incapable of rehab, which there will never be, so the point is moot).

An earlier series of posts in this thread caught my eye and I'd like to add a thought...

Quote:

Originally posted by voyd@Feb 24 2005, 11:33 AM
So, you DO believe that killing humans is justified in certain instances - like self-defense, etc.* Ok, was just wondering if you thought ALL killing was wrong...or not.* I see it's the latter now.* Gotcha. *

So, then it just becomes a judgment call whether a particular killing is justified or not - i.e. situational ethics.* But, isn't that all relative?* Can you really draw an absolutely clear line completely demarcating right/wrong in all cases?

[snapback]46829[/snapback]

there is a vast difference between survival-oriented justified killing (i.e. self defence) and morally justified killing (which I think is a contradiction in terms...there is no MORAL justification for killing, not in my book). If I kill someone in self defence, it is not morally right, but it IS necessary (and justifiable) if I wish to continue my existence.

I think it's absolutely essential for any morally responsible society to make the distinction between what is necessary and what is right...there will never be 100% overlap, but if we can't even admit there is a difference we may find one day our sense of "right" has become more akin to what is "necessary" than it should have...

**bluepea** · 10-25-2005, 12:11 PM

Very nicely written post horsepuppy.

Quote:

Originally posted by horsepuppy@Oct 25 2005, 09:18 AM
unless there is a fool-proof way to decide who is incapable of rehab, which there will never be, so the point is moot

And while I totally respect your opinion and am in no way, shape or form trying to "argue" or debate on this issue, I just wanted to comment on above statement.

There is a lot of evidence that speaks against the potential for a habitual sex offender/murderers to be rehabilitated. People who commit such crimes are ill - think of it as you would schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. They don't "get over it." There's no pill or combination of therapy that will "cure" them. These people don't commit crimes out of passion or self defense, instead out of enjoyment for the act. Ask any professional psychologist/psychiatrist about whether or not they can be rehabilitated and they will say no. I listened to a well renowned psychologist speak on this issue a while back and it was really interesting. I wish I could find the excerpt, just because she was really well spoken.

Please don't take the above as reason to believe I'm trying to sway anyone's view or anything.

horsepuppy · 10-25-2005, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jamiepeaski@Oct 25 2005, 02:11 PM
And while I totally respect your opinion and am in no way, shape or form trying to "argue" or debate on this issue, I just wanted to comment on above statement.

[snapback]82963[/snapback]

No offence taken!!...I am also not trying to impose any of my opinions on what is a decidedly touchy subject...if I may though, I'd like to expand a little...

I completely agree with you...there is much evidence to suggest that some "types" of criminals/deviants will not be rehabilitated using conventional thinking and methods. However, that doesn't mean they can't be rehabilitated, just that we don't know how...psychology and psychiatry are not exact sciences (just like any other medical field). Beyond the expansion of our knowledge of the human psyche, we also don't want to overlook those criminals (or perhaps a better term, as you said, would be patients) that will respond to treatment but were incorrectly diagnosed as being unable to rehabilitate. I suppose what it boils down to is that I would rather try to treat 1000 patients/criminals, incarcerate 999, and successfully help 1 as opposed to sentencing all 1000 to death.

We may be able to one day uncover what cause these behaviours and reduce them, benefiting everyone...easier said than done, I know, but worth the attempt.

**bluepea** · 10-25-2005, 03:33 PM

Well, psychology is a fairly new science so there is a lot to be learned. I think we should go back to lobotomies.

**beergal** · 10-25-2005, 04:06 PM

Quote:

I think we should go back to lobotomies.

lol dont think there will be much to investigate on me after the amount of brain cells i killed last weekend ha ha