Gaming World Forums
General Category => General Talk => Topic started by: AdderallApocalypse on April 06, 2008, 12:44:10 am
-
Do you believe that it is right to sentence people to death for certain crimes? Personally, I think that it is wrong to take another life. You are just doing their wrong, but again! It isn't right. This rose up when I heard people saying "Yeah! Death penalty to those creatures!" I'm not sure how many states in the U.S. support it, or what other countries do. Actually, I think Texas does. Anyway, what does everyone here think in regards to the matter?
-
Two words: Liberal Canadian.
Don't believe in it at all. It's a stupid system that accomplishes absolutely nothing other than making the victims' families feel at ease.
-
Nah I mean, giving someone the death penalty isn't really justice and a criminal isn't anymore dangerous to society being locked behind bars. Making someone spend life in prison seems more of the right thing to do. They can rot in their prison cell and think about what they did for the rest of their life and they get to lose their fucking sanity. Why take away that torture? That is surely worse than the death penalty. Knowing you are going to spend the rest of your life in some fucking cell. FUCK THAT! I'd beg for the death penalty.
-
the death penalty has been proven over and over to be an unsuccessful deterrent, there have been multiple criminological studies finding men on death row innocent, no other first world country has it, and for every Stinson and Griffin that could have been stopped (http://www.knbc.com/news/10708268/detail.html) there are hundreds of others who died when they didn't deserve to.
the idea of the death penalty as punishment is so primitive and archaic that it could only exist under the Christian right.
-
Do certain men deserve to die?
Yes they do. But I would never trust any court to decide who.
-
Do certain men deserve to die?
Yes they do. But I would never trust any court to decide who.
Yes, the murderers will decide who. Then the murderers will spend some time in prison, but it's okay, they still get to live.
And most murders don't carry life in prison without parole. So the whole thing of making them suffer for the rest of their lives, it's not like that at all.
-
No...just no. Watch "Dead man walking" if you aren't a christian :)
-
Nah I mean, giving someone the death penalty isn't really justice and a criminal isn't anymore dangerous to society being locked behind bars.
Except to other inmates, especially when the criminal knows he has nothing else to lose because they already have the maximum sentence. "Well, you killed this other inmate, so we're going to slap another 70 years on your life without parole sentence, to be served consecutively!"
the death penalty has been proven over and over to be an unsuccessful deterrent,
Unlike jail time, right? Because, I mean, crimes are typically premeditated (I'm gonna plan this out so I don't get caught) or in the heat of the moment, so let's not have any punishments at all because they're unsuccessful deterrents.
PS the purpose of the death penalty for retribution, not deterrence.
So the whole thing of making them suffer for the rest of their lives, it's not like that at all.
There's actually a very, very, very slim list of things that carry the death penalty. The only things I can think of off the top of my head are murdering a district attorney/etc, murdering a police officer, and I want to say killing 2 or more people in the process of committing a felony. It's not like it's something you can do by accident. Unless you're wrongfully convicted, but that's a problem with the court system, not the death penalty.
In theory, I approve of the death penalty. I believe there are certain things that people can do that forfeits their right to continue living.
-
Except to other inmates, especially when the criminal knows he has nothing else to lose because they already have the maximum sentence. "Well, you killed this other inmate, so we're going to slap another 70 years on your life without parole sentence, to be served consecutively!"
sooooo how come this isn't a huge epidemic.
how come every life sentence criminal isn't just killing all the guards and criminals he can.
oh wait is it because it's very hard to do in a maximum security prison where most lifers tend to go if they do violent crimes?
prison violence is a problem, but the statistics show that it's the NEWER inmates, not lifers, who tend to kill other prisoners.
Unlike jail time, right?
yes? the prospect of spending time in jail prevents A LOT of crime. the AMOUNT OF JAIL TIME, however, doesn't see much of an increase in deterrence.
the death penalty on the other hand applies to such a small number of crimes and those crimes tend to be so innately violent that the chances of anyone being deterred while commiting them by punishment is pretty ludicrous.
"we're going to kill this entire orphanage"
"WHOA GUYS WAIT...IF WE GET CAUGHT...WE MIGHT GET THE DEATH PENALTY!!!"
PS the purpose of the death penalty for retribution, not deterrence.
a Neanderthal's definition of retribution, maybe. a civilized society, no.
Unless you're wrongfully convicted, but that's a problem with the court system, not the death penalty.
this is a pretty morally depraved argument. wrongful convictions tend to be when people are accused of a higher level of crime than what they committed. the fact that a lot of people are KILLED for something they never did is a problem not with the courts (unless you can think of a great airtight way to prove someone murdered out of passion instead of planning and convey it to the jury), but with the fact that we still regard killing as a non-cruel and unusual punishment.
And most murders don't carry life in prison without parole.
yeah the parole hearing tends to come fairly late in life, and while supervised as well.
I've met plenty of murderers (lmaaaao whaaat), and they are among the nicest people ever. the ones you avoid are your armed robberies. lifers are the nicest people in the world most of the time. this idea that prison is this neato place where all prisoners are just smiles all the time is pretty funny.
-
you ever have that moment where you realize no matter what you say and how much literature there is and the fact that every civilized nation has gotten rid of it and the overwhelming cruelty and hardship it places on innocent people, someone will still bring up WHAT IF IT WAS YOUR MOM?
having that now, I'm out of this topic, l.a.t.e.r.s.
-
I don't believe in it, it doesn't exist and the science has no proof that it does
If it existed I would be 80% against it because it's murder but then there are some people who are so cruel they should just stop existing instead of "paying for their crimes".
-
An eye for an eye, fuckers. If you kill someone, we should kill you back.
-
I'm fully against capital punishment.
no other first world country has it
There's one exception to that: Japan.
-
The death penalty is a pretty disgusting notion and I find it really odd that the United States still practices it.
-
-
I'm fully against capital punishment.
What is your justification for your choice? I'm not saying that it is neccessary to back up your opinion, but I'm just curious.
-
i am for the death penalty only because i want the government to have full and direct control over life and death rather than waiting for hurricanes or starting wars
i'm not sure of the necessity of killing someone once they're captured. i guess there's good guys and bad guys and you have to kill bad guys
-
An eye for an eye, fuckers. If you kill someone, we should kill you back.
"WHOOPS IT WAS THIS OTHER GUY WHO KILLED HIM, NOT YOU....YOU'RE DEAD NOW THO....SORRY ^_^*"
-
yeah the parole hearing tends to come fairly late in life, and while supervised as well.
I've met plenty of murderers (lmaaaao whaaat), and they are among the nicest people ever. the ones you avoid are your armed robberies. lifers are the nicest people in the world most of the time. this idea that prison is this neato place where all prisoners are just smiles all the time is pretty funny.
Well if they're nice, then we should just let them out. As long as they could be nice and well mannered before and after they murder, we can forgive.
And of course prison is horrible, but it's better than being dead, especially if you killed someone for it.
-
What is your justification for your choice? I'm not saying that it is neccessary to back up your opinion, but I'm just curious.
Well, I can't go into detail right now, since it's very late in my part of the Old World right now, but basically the most major problem is that it's broken.
We punish people for several reasons, among them being incapacitation, retribution and deterrence. We'll start at the beginning. Versus life in prison, capital punishment is not more incapacitating, as in both cases the criminal can no longer commit any further crimes. As far as retribution goes, one could say that the death penalty is a more fitting punishment to those who have committed the worst kinds of crimes, but I don't agree with that. It's mostly a matter of opinion, and should matter the least for that reason. Then there's deterrence. It's been shown that there's no real correlation between whether capital punishment is being used in a jurisdiction and the number of committed crimes that could fall under such punishment. If you're crazy and you're going to shoot up a school, you're not going to be bothered by the fact they might kill you later. You're going to do it anyway.
The crime rate is still lower in the Netherlands than it is in the U.S., after all!
-
For guys like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Gary Ridgway, The Boston Strangler, and other sick fucks like them I'm all for the death penalty.
-
I'm against the death penalty, I think its barbaric and idiotic. The government shouldn't be some sort of vengeance and punishment machine that is there to make victims feel better by hitting the bad guys with a stick. The government is there to place dangerous people in cages away from society so they cant harm the rest of the population, until they are deemed to no longer be dangerous. The death penalty is not an efficient deterrent either, because non-premeditated murderers don't think of the consequences before they act, and premeditated murderers already know what terrible act they're about to commit, and either don't care or are simply convinced they'll never get caught.
No government should be able to decide of the life and death of anyone.
-
I'm fully against capital punishment.There's one exception to that: Japan.
I think Singapore have it aswell.
I'm against it for the obvious stated reason.
You can never be 100% sure that inmate is guilty
Killing the murderer means that the system is technically a murderer, so where's it's death penalty?
Completely barbaric in 21st century Earth.
-
I think Singapore have it aswell.
Yeah, you're right, I forgot about that one. And Taiwan as well. And I actually also forgot about South Korea which still has it but apparently hasn't used it for a very long time (so you could consider it de facto abolished).
Well, there goes that argument. (Not really.)
-
My beliefs are totally up in the air about anything and everything lately, but this is one of the few things that I can simply and easily say no to. It's beyond barbaric. You don't have the right to take away someone's life. It's pretty simple. The amount of innocent people that have been put on death row and/or executed is absolutely sickening (even one innocent being killed is sickening), and helps to show how bad the system is. It doesn't have any real deterrant factor, but that is beyond the point. How can you kill someone and claim some kind of moral highground over them?
Why not invest the execution money (and costs of the constant legal battles about the system) into a better prison system? Why not instigate a series of social reforms aimed at tackling the causes of these problems? Why not finally pay attention to like every FBI report since the 40's which has highlighted these problems, yet get ignored? THEN you could claim to have some "morals". (morals here being short for "not being a douche", and not related to the religious kind)
People still see this shit as goodguy vs badguy, kill the badguy so only the goodguys are left, and it's really, really ridiculous.
-
For guys like Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Gary Ridgway, The Boston Strangler, and other sick fucks like them I'm all for the death penalty.
this isn't really something you can be SITUATIONALLY FOR OR AGAINST whenever it seems opportune, dude. either you approve of the practice universally or you don't, since those are pretty much your only options when it comes to practical implementation.
-
Well regardless of whether the person's guilty I hate when people who have nothing to do with the crime and just hear "this guy is murderer" are all like really wanting justice even when the only people it should give CLOSURE to would be the families
so yeah I'm against it but also adding the reason if I got the death penalty but didn't do the crime or somehow had some kind of good reason for it I'd be more angry seeing some random MAN ON STREET on the news who somehow has an opinion on whether I should live or die
I mean I can see where the family would want justice but for some random person wanting someone to die just to feel JUSTICE IN THE WORLD is fucking stupid because there's still going to be just as much injustice as before the guy was dead even if he did it. But yeah I like the goodguys and badguys metaphor, I mean I do agree that a murderer has no place in society and if someone murdered somebody I knew I'd want to make sure they couldn't do that again, and that'd be my idea of justice. But I hope I wouldn't be thinking this guy is in jail going hu hu hu - like that stuff makes me think of Kevin Spacey in Seven, as long as I knew the guy was like never getting out of prison ever I think I'd be ok with it because any cunt who would just murder random people is obviously really fucked up and he'll probably think he's "right" even if he had to face death like that and see the error of his ways, which I guess might be another justification for it - but I think anybody like that is just so messed up I would just want to not have to have such a bastard in my life anymore - like somebody like Ted Bundy like isn't even worth anybody's time or attention aside from making sure he doesn't kill anyone because he's so fucked up
but yeah this kind of thing makes me think of religion vs. non-religion (no offense) because if you want to see a complete psycho get the death penalty I think it's kind of admitting that he had REASONS for what he did, which seems kind of religious to me, having to tack a reason onto every fucked-up thing that happens in the world. To me it'd be more comforting to think people like that are just so outside the morality of regular decent human beings it's doing a disservice to regular people to try to find it somewhere in the human condition
-
but yeah this kind of thing makes me think of religion vs. non-religion (no offense) because if you want to see a complete psycho get the death penalty I think it's kind of admitting that he had REASONS for what he did, which seems kind of religious to me, having to tack a reason onto every fucked-up thing that happens in the world.
This sounds more like Sociology than religion.
-
An eye for an eye, fuckers. If you kill someone, we should kill you back.
I don't know if you're being serious or not but that whole eye-for-an-eye thing is thousands of years old and is a barbaric notion carried out during a time when chopping someone's hand off for stealing apples was common practice. It's pretty terrible when someone is murdered, yes, but we are human beings and we're all capable of the same sin. Regardless if you're religious or not, how can you honestly determine who lives and dies when it could have been you carrying out the murder?
Yeah, you're right, I forgot about that one. And Taiwan as well. And I actually also forgot about South Korea which still has it but apparently hasn't used it for a very long time (so you could consider it de facto abolished).
Well, there goes that argument. (Not really.)
I don't think they've ever used it in a long long time. Singapore has such a stupidly low crime rate that they only execute the TOP drug runners. I don't know much about South Korea but Taiwan also has a pretty low crime rate compared to their population.
My biggest thing about the death penalty is that it gives humans the power of God. We have no right to choose who lives or dies based on their actions because, as I said above, we're all imperfect people. I wouldn't complain about the death penalty so much if the American legal system wasn't so indecisive about it. It takes years if not decades of sitting on death row before a capital punishment is pulled off and even then there's still DOUBT as to whether or not the defendant is guilty. It's already been proven countless times that an inmate who spends 10 years on death row costs more (in taxes, court costs, and upkeep) than several inmates in federal prison for the same length of time.
That's money the tax payers could be using fueling up their gas guzzlers or buying cheapass gaudy jewelry to stimulate the economy.
-
I don't believe in the death penalty because it's just an easy way out, I think someone commits a crime warranting the death penatly should be tortured mentaly and always given hope...and have it take away from them. (live in a box room, warm enough to sustain life, live with your own shit..etc.)
I only beleive in the death penalty for people who are to dangerouse to let live (a person who inspires hope in terrorist for example)
-
I don't believe in the death penalty because it's just an easy way out, I think someone commits a crime warranting the death penatly should be tortured mentaly and always given hope...and have it take away from them. (live in a box room, warm enough to sustain life, live with your own shit..etc.)
I only beleive in the death penalty for people who are to dangerouse to let live (a person who inspires hope in terrorist for example)
ffffff with this type of response I can only refer back to what I was implying earlier
What happens when they're wrongly accused? Really, what can you say other than "WHOOPS SORRY FOR TORTURING YOU!" At least in normal jail time the person can read and keep on TRYING to live life, but any of these extreme measures of DEATH or WORSE THAN DEATH never take into the account that that person may not be guilty.
-
if he isn't, pay the person. What else do you want us to do? "Hey, we found you guilty...but we arn't perfect so we arn't going to give you what we think you deserve...just incase you are not guilty...but you probably are."
it's just one of those flaws you can't fix, I mean no matter how close to perfection we reach; it's always going to be 99.9%
-
if he isn't, pay the person. What else do you want us to do? "Hey, we found you guilty...but we arn't perfect so we arn't going to give you what we think you deserve...just incase you are not guilty...but you probably are."
it's just one of those flaws you can't fix, I mean no matter how close to perfection we reach; it's always going to be 99.9%
Yeah, it is a flaw you can't fix. That's why you make sure that you can reverse the punishment. You can't give a guy the years he was in jail back, but at least he can get over it and return to a normal life over time. MENTAL TORTURE AND DEATH are not reverseable, so why use them as punishments for an unsure crime?
-
'A WRONGLY ACCUSED PERSON MIGHT BE PUT TO DEATH' is reason to reform and improve the legal and court system, not an argument against the death penalty. Also seeing how a lot of criminals get treated in jail these days (aka VERY well, better than average joe civilian) I would rather see them disposed of then pampered. (obviously not the petty crime, the big stuff etc etc)
In my eyes there's some people who just don't deserve to live, mass murderers, terrorists, chavs, etc. I would gladly give them the death sentence and not feel the slightest bit guilty about it either. I have no reasonable arguments to give to sway people this way, it's merely an opinion.
-
Alright, tell me how we're going to fix the legal system. When we do that, THEN we can talk about the death penalty. It doesn't matter which one is flawed, you can't USE the death penalty until whichever one is the problem is fixed. Even if it is the legal system, it still means that an innocent person could be put to death. And even if it's just for huge crimes, the wrong person can still be accused for a huge crime. The public thinks they don't deserve to live, but the public has no idea if that person is the one responsible for the horrible crimes.
The problem is that there is no foolproof way of testing guilt (if there was we'd have no more problems ever) thus there is no way to reasonably employ the death penalty.
-
If I knew how to fix it I would've done it by now. I don't agree with having a death sentence in our current legal system, no damn way. I would probably end up getting killed for walking down the wrong street at the wrong time, without even committing a crime.
Say a guy fires a rocket launcher at a group of civvies..that is a foolproof way of seeing he is guilty because HE WAS FIRING THE ROCKET LAUNCHER (okay this is a strange example but you get the point here).
Yeah there is foolproof ways to test guilt. CCTV footage + witnesses of say a guy planting a bomb and detonating it would be good enough for me. Yeah witnesses can lie but backed up by good digital footage and you've got your evidence right there.
-
Haven't you ever seen Prison break? (lol)
-
What ever happened to Hammurabi's code, man? Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, life for a life? Granted, that doesn't work very well on certain occasions. Like, if you killed someone's son, and they killed your son? Man, those Mesopotamians were weird. They had a good band, though.
I'm not really sure about capital punishment. I mean, it's not really my place to judge anyone (that is how you get out of jury duty), but if you take someone's life and you get, like, thirty years in prison... it doesn't really seem fair.
Then again, if someone's given the death penalty and later evidence shows that they were innocent.... well, that certainly sucks. There's also that whole thing about lethal injection being painful (who would know?) which is a very horrible thing to think about.
-
What ever happened to Hammurabi's code, man? Eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, life for a life? Granted, that doesn't work very well on certain occasions.
we gave that up when we advanced past the bronze age?
-
we gave that up when we advanced past the bronze age?
That was a little bit of sarcasm, there. Also, post was edited, probably while you were typing. Mesopotamia's cool and all, but nowadays the only place it belongs is in They Might Be Giants songs.
-
Alright, tell me how we're going to fix the legal system. When we do that, THEN we can talk about the death penalty. It doesn't matter which one is flawed, you can't USE the death penalty until whichever one is the problem is fixed. Even if it is the legal system, it still means that an innocent person could be put to death. And even if it's just for huge crimes, the wrong person can still be accused for a huge crime. The public thinks they don't deserve to live, but the public has no idea if that person is the one responsible for the horrible crimes.
Well, the best way to "fix" the legal system is with a stringent control on the distribution of firearms and a system of education that doesn't rob public schools of funding because half the students are underpriveliged and can't pass the tests that determines the money needed to educate them in the first place.
Once you crack down on crime, there's no need to reform a system that's hardly used. I don't know the guvmint hasn't realised yet that the best deterrant for crime is to keep people busy, but whatever. I was once called a terrorist sympathizer because I said the common terrorist is an impoverished person with literally nothing to lose; remove the poverty aspect and they would definitely think twice about blowing themselves up. Same thing applies to crime; remove the need to commit a crime and you'll have less fucking criminals.
but what do i know i'm just a kid
-
'A WRONGLY ACCUSED PERSON MIGHT BE PUT TO DEATH' is reason to reform and improve the legal and court system, not an argument against the death penalty.
Contradictory. Not only is abolishing capital punishment the only viable way to improve the legal system so as to ensure that no innocent people can be killed, it's also inappropriate to be saying that we can't fix one wrong before we fix the other. ("[...] remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye." - Matthew 7:5)
-
Wouldn't this belong more in the politics forum than GENERAL CHAT
The death penalty is moronic btw, everyone knows that.
-
That's part of what I was saying before, it's like "yeah some people just shouldn't be allowed to live" but I think it's damaging for an otherwise good person to make judgements like that - I hate how people make it like killing or not killing is some kind of morally challenging thing, I think it's that some people are more coocoo-nuts than others. Like I sure hope nobody here has ever had a moral conflict whether or not to make a CHAIR out of someone
-
Heh. This topic was the Lincoln-Douglas debate topic a few months ago, so I've argued for both sides. Because everyone (naturally) seems to be against it, let's put my negative to some use. As for myself, I believe that the death penalty can be used under certain conditions.
I know this was brought up before, but I want to re-establish it. Suppose a man DOES kill again in prison. How do we punish him without the death penalty?
Mind you, cases like this do happen. The Federal Bureau of Statistics finds that 4 out of every 100,000 prisoners kill police staff and inmates. <http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/shsplj.htm> Though we aren't sure of HOW MANY these convicts mercilessly kill, we can assume it's 4.
Basically, you guys are arguing that you want to steer clear from government execution of innocents, and you replace it with a system that STILL does so.
-
yo heres something im in a class RIGHT NOW (teacher is talking) and we learned abotu a cool case, it's called Ford v. Wainwright.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_v._Wainwright
check it out, it's interesting.
atkins v. virginia is about retards, check that oneout too.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle
HOOOOLY SHIT.
you got but for'd sonnnnn
-
'A WRONGLY ACCUSED PERSON MIGHT BE PUT TO DEATH' is reason to reform and improve the legal and court system, not an argument against the death penalty. Also seeing how a lot of criminals get treated in jail these days (aka VERY well, better than average joe civilian) I would rather see them disposed of then pampered. (obviously not the petty crime, the big stuff etc etc)
In my eyes there's some people who just don't deserve to live, mass murderers, terrorists, chavs, etc. I would gladly give them the death sentence and not feel the slightest bit guilty about it either. I have no reasonable arguments to give to sway people this way, it's merely an opinion.
I bet you're one of those persons that trip a kid running with scissors to prove a point.
Heh. This topic was the Lincoln-Douglas debate topic a few months ago, so I've argued for both sides. Because everyone (naturally) seems to be against it, let's put my negative to some use. As for myself, I believe that the death penalty can be used under certain conditions.
I know this was brought up before, but I want to re-establish it. Suppose a man DOES kill again in prison. How do we punish him without the death penalty?
Mind you, cases like this do happen. The Federal Bureau of Statistics finds that 4 out of every 100,000 prisoners kill police staff and inmates. <http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/shsplj.htm> Though we aren't sure of HOW MANY these convicts mercilessly kill, we can assume it's 4.
Basically, you guys are arguing that you want to steer clear from government execution of innocents, and you replace it with a system that STILL does so.
There's this nifty thing called solitary confinement, you should try it someday.
There might be something to say for the death penalty in that it clears up space, but bloody hell, you americans have enough space already.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle
HOOOOLY SHIT.
you got but for'd sonnnnn
The fuck...this is really serious? Am I reading this wrong or is he supposed to be getting the death penalty for JUST LENDING SOMEONE HIS CAR and nothing else? Without knowing what it would be used for? Shiiiiiiit
-
@ 4Dsheep
Solitary confinement for life can be classified as cruel and unusual, therefore contradicting amendment 8 of the U.S. constitution.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/09/solitary.confinement/
-
The fuck...this is really serious? Am I reading this wrong or is he supposed to be getting the death penalty for JUST LENDING SOMEONE HIS CAR and nothing else? Without knowing what it would be used for? Shiiiiiiit
yeah this girl in class went crazy and even though she was pretty right she was so crazy we spent like the last thirty minutes listening to her rant and the teacher explain.
-
The fuck...this is really serious? Am I reading this wrong or is he supposed to be getting the death penalty for JUST LENDING SOMEONE HIS CAR and nothing else? Without knowing what it would be used for? Shiiiiiiit
Yeah, please fucking explain this because this is making me go crazy.
I hope your explanation starts with "Well..... it was a Floridian judicial system......"
edit: not the death penalty, but life without parole (STILL FUCKED)
-
"Holle, who had given the police statements in which he seemed to admit knowing about the burglary, was convicted on 3 August 2004[2] of first-degree murder under a legal doctrine known as the felony murder rule.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle
EDIT: This is basically manslaughter. While he did not conspire to murder, his actions resulted in one. I think it's the same if, drinking and driving, you accidentally kill someone -- while there is no malicious intent, your idiocy resulted in someone's death. Arguably, however, this punishment may be disproportionate. I bet the state's appellate lawyers are busy.
-
"Holle, who had given the police statements in which he seemed to admit knowing about the burglary, was convicted on 3 August 2004[2] of first-degree murder under a legal doctrine known as the felony murder rule.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle
saying someone "seemed to admit knowing about a burglary" (what can that even MEAN? it sounds like he says "yeah, maybe they were going to do something illegal") doesn't justify prosecuting them for first degree murder and trying to get the death penalty
-
EDIT: This is basically manslaughter. While he did not conspire to murder, his actions resulted in one. I think it's the same if, drinking and driving, you accidentally kill someone -- while there is no malicious intent, your idiocy resulted in someone's death. Arguably, however, this punishment may be disproportionate. I bet the state's appellate lawyers are busy.
ahahahaha so lemme get this straight.
My roommate asks me to borrow a bedsheet (he can either tell me it is for some normal purpose like SLEEPING, or I can simply not ask) and I give it to him. While I am off at class on campus 1.5 miles away, my roommate gets some girl to come over the apartment and strangles her with the bedsheet until she chokes and dies.
Although in this case the item lent is directly the weapon of death, all of the other circumstances you described are the same. By lending the bedsheet, I did not conspire to murder, but my roommate's actions resulted in a murder. I had no malicious intent. I was not at the crime scene. My idiocy of lending my roommate the bedsheet resulted in someone's death.
OOPS GUESS ITS MANSLAUGHTER
-
@ Velfarre
Solitary confinement for life can be classified as cruel and unusual, therefore contradicting amendment 8 of the U.S. constitution.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9801/09/solitary.confinement/
I am pretty sure you didn't mean me for this because if so I have no idea why.
Also in the case of the guy lending the car, I don't think SEEMED really counts for much, especially because it could mean something like he was told about the murder and then thought back and in hindsight, he could remember the guy acting strange. Or anything else like that. "Seemed" doesn't count as AIDING MURDER.
-
ASE, you really should stop letting your bedsheets out to murderers. You bring it on yourself.
-5 Dapp
-
Hah, sorry about that -- wrong person. 4Dsheep*
Aside from the fact that he probably could have used another bedsheet if you hadn't given him one, the situation described is not the same. Now, if you knew beforehand that your friend was going to rape the girl, and you gave him the equipment to do so, and your friend kills her with the equipment in question -- then the situation is the same.
-
Hah, sorry about that -- wrong person. 4Dsheep*
Aside from the fact that he probably could have used another bedsheet if you hadn't given him one, the situation described is not the same. Now, if you knew beforehand that your friend was going to rape the girl, and you gave him the equipment to do so, and your friend kills her with the equipment in question -- then the situation is the same.
There is no evidence that he actually knew beforehand though. Just that he "seemed" to admit knowing about it, which doesn't really hold any water.
-
There is no evidence that he actually knew beforehand though. Just that he "seemed" to admit knowing about it, which doesn't really hold any water.
That's true -- and if there were evidence, it would be very arbitrary. It really depends on how well the prosecution plays it.
-
"Holle, who had given the police statements in which he seemed to admit knowing about the burglary, was convicted on 3 August 2004[2] of first-degree murder under a legal doctrine known as the felony murder rule.[1]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Holle
EDIT: This is basically manslaughter. While he did not conspire to murder, his actions resulted in one. I think it's the same if, drinking and driving, you accidentally kill someone -- while there is no malicious intent, your idiocy resulted in someone's death. Arguably, however, this punishment may be disproportionate. I bet the state's appellate lawyers are busy.
It's not the same as drinking and driving. It's not even really idiocy, especially to the same degree. His friend, could of driven to a laundry list of places. If you want to attribute his actions of lending his car to his friend as manslaughter, then you might as well attribute a lot more things to manslaughter, too. The guy's actions were too indirect to have any real place in the murder. It's especially bad that they even tried to sentence him to capital punishment.
-
That story is just sad...
I can't believe they actually sentenced him to life sentence.
Anyway, I'm against the death penalty, not only because some innocent might get killed, but because I also think that every human life is valuable, and no one has the right to take that. I know kmurderers don't think the same way as I do, but killing them isn't going to fix anything.
Besides when you kill someone, it's not just bad for that person (if it's even bad, considering they will be, you know, dead) but also it's a pretty shitty experience for the people that knew them, if a murderer has a daughter and a wife, even if he's a murderer, they will be sad for their loss.
I'm not saying that because everyone has people that care for you you should let the whole prison free, but I think killing someone is way over the top.
-
The problem is, innocent people have gotten it which is really a problem in the justice system itself.
If the crime is truly heinous and the person is unstable and a threat to society then yes, I support it.
Life sentences could be sufficent in most cases, but I believe that there truly are people deserving of their life being taken away.
-
I am for the death penalty because it is society's way of saying to someone "Sorry, but you're just too much trouble." Mind you, I think it should be reseved for only the worst repeat offenders and people who committ war cirmes or crimes against humanity. You can't just go around axing retarded people. While every human life is valuable, even those of criminals, those who break the social contract (that we all abide by in this little thing we call society) repeatedly and well beyond anything forgiveable and with maliscious intent pose a threat to us that really can't be ignored. So yeah, sorry, but you'd just be too much trouble if we let you live.
The idea that capital punishment is barbaric and uncivilized is moot, because the barbaric and uncivilized thing would be to have someone show up to his house, and bludgeon the guy to death with a pan of rice crispie treats. The process is institutionalized, legalized, rationalized, and scientifically executed, in application and as a mechanism of social control. Its pretty much a descriptor of human "civilization" that we have these kinds of mechanisms.
-
The process is institutionalized, legalized, rationalized, and scientifically executed, in application and as a mechanism of social control.
A lot of terrible things done in the world are all (or at least most) of these things too. That's all I can say about that.
-
The idea that capital punishment is barbaric and uncivilized is moot, because the barbaric and uncivilized thing would be to have someone show up to his house, and bludgeon the guy to death with a pan of rice crispie treats. The process is institutionalized, legalized, rationalized, and scientifically executed, in application and as a mechanism of social control. Its pretty much a descriptor of human "civilization" that we have these kinds of mechanisms.
the reason people call the death penalty barbaric and uncivilized has nothing to do with the quality of the death.
-
There is no death penalty in Canada right now (I live here). I don't really believe in it though. I almost think it is a 'worse' punishment to let some rot in jail for the rest of their lives, thinking about what they have done. The only thing the death penalty, in my opinion, solves right away is the victims family's, or whatevers, feelings. I mean they have a relief that the person who committed the crime is now dead, and justice has been served. I just think it would be better to put them in jail for the rest of their lives, rather then let them take the 'easy way out' in a sense.
-
The idea that capital punishment is barbaric and uncivilized is moot, because the barbaric and uncivilized thing would be to have someone show up to his house, and bludgeon the guy to death with a pan of rice crispie treats. The process is institutionalized, legalized, rationalized, and scientifically executed, in application and as a mechanism of social control. Its pretty much a descriptor of human "civilization" that we have these kinds of mechanisms.
Maybe you don't consider execution to be barbaric, but I do; regardless of how it's done.
-
I don't believe in the death penalty because it's just an easy way out, I think someone commits a crime warranting the death penatly should be tortured mentaly and always given hope...and have it take away from them. (live in a box room, warm enough to sustain life, live with your own shit..etc.)
Are you fucking serious? You can't be fucking serious.
-
The idea that capital punishment is barbaric and uncivilized is moot, because the barbaric and uncivilized thing would be to have someone show up to his house, and bludgeon the guy to death with a pan of rice crispie treats. The process is institutionalized, legalized, rationalized, and scientifically executed, in application and as a mechanism of social control. Its pretty much a descriptor of human "civilization" that we have these kinds of mechanisms.
Actually, even lethal injection is pretty barbaric. For one, doctors DO NOT administer it because it's against their code of ethics [1]. Because of this, those who administer the various poisons are volunteers [2]. Ultimately, one's death is neither quick nor painless.
It is done in three stages. The first one is the injection of anesthetic, causing the patient to fall asleep. The second stage involves stunting the patient's ability to move. The final stage is to stop the heart. The various dosages herein are prone to HUGE mistake. Depending on how much the anesthetic dose is, "the individual may wake up within three or four minutes" [1]. This means that the patient may wake up by the time the volunteer administers the chemical that stops the heart. Essentially, the patient suffers a heart attack while in full cognition of his surroundings. He doesn't move, because of the second stage dosage. fyi -- heart attacks are extremely painful -- as if the chest is being forcibly torn apart. Anyways, other problems include the fact that volunteers can botch up the kill so bad that they have to close the curtains and DO IT AGAIN [1].
"We know that in about 40% of cases where lethal injection has been used, there has been misuse in one way or another and it has taken as long as 45 minutes for the person to die..." [1]
This is pretty horrible, raising questions of whether or not it is ethical worldwide.
[1] = http://www.deathrowspeaks.info/information/lethalinjection.html
[2] = Some book I had read. "Opposing Viewpoints: The Death Penalty" a 1991 edition.
EDIT:
I don't believe in the death penalty because it's just an easy way out, I think someone commits a crime warranting the death penatly should be tortured mentaly and always given hope...and have it take away from them. (live in a box room, warm enough to sustain life, live with your own shit..etc.)
There is actually some merit in his statement. Those who are given the death penalty get weekly lawyer visits (paid for by the state), can screw around with a faulty appellate system, and sometimes get out even if they are downright guilty due to some shitty court semantic. They live in absolute hope -- to the very last. Kind of reminds me of that one Twilight Zone episode where the guy about to be hung dreams of escaping, lives out the fantasy, then is killed inexorably.
The fact that the state pays more for capital appellate cases more than life-imprisonment-w/o-parole cases (114 million dollars more in CA according to: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108 ctrl+f "California") shows that convicts who are put in Life Imprisonment W/O Parole simply have lesser incentive to try and beat the system.
EDITEDIT: In retrospect I'ma need to revise that last citation -- I'm actually not sure whether or not the cost of the appellate court case for lifers is less than capital appellate cases. These guys might have wanted to stress the difference by not including that cost for lifers to show that it was 'significantly' lesser. Those assholes.
-
i am for it, but not in the traditional terms. first of all, i am completely againt the electric chair or lethal injection. i have no alternative solution, but it think a greater deal of thought needs to be put into this. secondly, i believe the death penalty does not deter people at all. thirdly, only those who have clear and obvious evidence linking them to a crime, and the crime itself being more than a single murder, should ever be sentenced to the death penalty. finally, my reasoning for this is because i think life imprisonment (if you are guilty, innocent people could eventually get freed by evidence although admittedly it is not a high chance) is completely pointless and in my opinion, life imprisonment is less humane than actually killing someone. in current prisons, an ideal prisoner would essentially be a robot and cannot contribute anything to society. all maximum security prisons (in america at least, i admit i am not well versed in prison systems of the world) simply want to contain the inmates. there is no point in this. at the same time i admit it would be pretty hard getting prisoners to DO THINGS that would self sustain the prison system or at the very least pay for a portion of it.
financially it should be a lot less to execute someone, but this has very little to do with my reasoning. juris linked some figures but i'm going to disregard those because it makes no sense why maintaining a human for life should be cheaper than executing someone. i am going to give the benefit of saying it's about the same, but it shouldn't be and this needs to fixed. you could argue the death sentence stands in the way of a more "rehabilitating" prison system, but again, i don't think there is any reason someone who commited multiple murders should be existing. someone like this has already greatly set back society, and by getting rid of the worst of the worst, you can still go forward with a better prison system. potentially you could get rid of this down the line, but as it stands now, this would be someone who would spend a lifetime in jail as an alternative.
you could say to me that anyone who is sentenced to life that doesn't meet my criteria goes againt my inhumane argument. i actually think anyone who faces a life imprisonment should have the choice of being executed. in this same vien, you could say an innocent person may opt to take this route when they may be cleared later. all i can say to this is that it's highly unfortunate anyone would be falsely imprisoned for life and in an anti-death penalty prison system you may have innocent people living a pointless existance in prison.
as xeno-soft has already proved, there are people against the death penalty because they think it is a worse situation than death. i have heard this countless times and i cannot imagine how someone againt the death penalty for ethical / moral reasons would see this as any better than someone for the death penalty. this said, i think the poll is not completely true to the figures because i do believe a lot of people are against the death penalty for this reason. not to say the death penalty is any better than not having it, i actually think it makes very little difference either way. although i do think it is more humane with the things i have listed.
-
I maintain my statement that while the means of rational execution may be inhumane, it is a very civilized process, because the other side of the coin, the "uncivilized" equivalent, is pretty much anarchistic vigilante homicide. My point is, is that without legalistic forms of execution, the in-practice alternative would in fact be more anarchic and "barbaric" (I hate using the word, being a classicist and knowing how arbitrary it is). Of course, this is more of an argument on the mode of the death penalty rather than weather it is acceptable or not. My point really is that its not barbaric, but inhumane, yes it can be, but that doesn't mean it can't be justified.
-
financially it should be a lot less to execute someone, but this has very little to do with my reasoning. juris linked some figures but i'm going to disregard those because it makes no sense why maintaining a human for life should be cheaper than executing someone.
as far as Juris's argument goes, I can back it up with every legal class I've taken and every citation I've ever read; because of the appeals process, media circus, increased security, death row maintenance, and a whole lot of factors, seeking the death penalty almost always costs more than life in prison. you can't just say "well, it should be less huh" because it's simplifying too much about the death penalty. the majority of the money spent by the state on death penalty stuff has to do with the appeals process, something I think we all agree can't be cut.
if you really want more studies, I can ask around for them, but im lazy to do it for internet.
-
I maintain my statement that while the means of rational execution may be inhumane, it is a very civilized process, because the other side of the coin, the "uncivilized" equivalent, is pretty much anarchistic vigilante homicide. My point is, is that without legalistic forms of execution, the in-practice alternative would in fact be more anarchic and "barbaric" (I hate using the word, being a classicist and knowing how arbitrary it is). Of course, this is more of an argument on the mode of the death penalty rather than weather it is acceptable or not. My point really is that its not barbaric, but inhumane, yes it can be, but that doesn't mean it can't be justified.
Dude if you're saying that without a death penalty, people will just go around killing murderers, then you... my god this is the stupidest thing I have ever read. Have you taken into account all of the countries that don't have death penalties (like my very own England) yet are not goverened by vigilante law. We have a very public legal system where murderers, paedophiles and mass rapists get their faces and names published everywhere in a mass media frenzy.
Yet we don't have snarking lynch mobs.
-
as far as Juris's argument goes, I can back it up with every legal class I've taken and every citation I've ever read; because of the appeals process, media circus, increased security, death row maintenance, and a whole lot of factors, seeking the death penalty almost always costs more than life in prison. you can't just say "well, it should be less huh" because it's simplifying too much about the death penalty. the majority of the money spent by the state on death penalty stuff has to do with the appeals process, something I think we all agree can't be cut.
if you really want more studies, I can ask around for them, but im lazy to do it for internet.
i have no disagreement with the costs either way. the point i am making is that it makes no sense why it costs more to execute someone than to imprison them for the remainder of their life. i myself was not aware the costs were at least comparable until a few years ago, and was surprised to hear it myself. i can't imagine the current process used is very efficient if this is the case the majority of the time.
-
It's a good thing that we spend all of this money because it's a safety net to ensure that we don't execute innocents. I suppose our justice system would condone even the guilty getting away, so long as we do not wrongfully punish the innocent.
Magical Negro, doesn't the state fund both death penalty appellate cases and life imprisonment appellate cases? Why would the death penalty cost more than life imprisonment, then? Shouldn't the cost be about the same?
-
Are you fucking serious? You can't be fucking serious.
lmao; your post had me rollin' , nah, but i don't beleive in the death penalty.
-
I'll just C&P something i read
The death penalty is much more expensive than its closest alternative -- life imprisonment with no parole. Capital trials are longer and more expensive at every step than other murder trials. Pre-trial motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection, and the necessity for two trials -- one on guilt and one on sentencing -- make capital cases extremely costly, even before the appeals process begins. Guilty pleas are almost unheard of when the punishment is death. In addition, many of these trials result in a life sentence rather than the death penalty, so the state pays the cost of life imprisonment on top of the expensive trial.
theres also this
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Facts-and-Figures/Cost-of-the-Death-Penalty/page.do?id=1101084&n1=3&n2=28&n3=99
-
It's a good thing that we spend all of this money because it's a safety net to ensure that we don't execute innocents.
It's nice you spend all this money, but innocent people are still being executed.
-
That's what everyone says -- but in all of my research, I could not find one post-kirk-bloodsworth convict who had been wrongfully executed. It is very possible, and some have gotten damn close: http://www.innocenceproject.org/ but the information is probably highly undisclosed to the public (which could be true, if the government wants to save face) or, theoretically, we simply have not killed an innocent man. You would think that opponents of the death penalty would have at least one case to parade their points around with, but I just don't see that. The fact is that these people are convicted for a reason -- because there is evidence against them.
It's impossible to assess the merits of whether or not a convict is innocent without looking at the case in retrospect. So we assume guilt until innocence is proven otherwise. And if, in retrospect, any convict cannot prove his innocence or point out any court flaws in appellate court, he is as good as guilty in the face of our justice system.
Admittedly, according to the Death Penalty Information Center (this is a huge-ass website and the book I got this from didn't even cite it properly, but nonetheless...), only 25% of capital cases have had DNA evidence (you wouldn't get DNA from a shootout). And there is a whole smorgasbord of cases where the DNA evidence could have been figmented, wrongfully planted, mishandled, et al (the "Innocence Project" explains this well). So there is a good assumption that we might kill innocents still, but without cold, hard proof, even one contemporary case where an innocent man WAS ABSOLUTELY wrongfully killed, I think that this is pure moot.
-
http://www.witnesstoinnocence.org/
Apparently they recently exonerated the 124th death row inmate!
-
Don't they stop checking after they were executed though? While they're still alive it's obvious that they'll try to get appeals and find more evidence but when they're already executed? I think the money goes to the investigation of not-dead peoples crimes, the motivation to save lives is higher than the motivation to prove a point.
-
But by proving the point that the death penalty is too flawed, they directly save the lifes of the people in the future that would get capital punishement, right?
-
Kaworu, I wasn't saying that without the death penalty people would go around killing murderers, I was saying that the best way to kill murderers is with the death penalty.
-
just a few hours ago, the SC upheld Kentucky's lethal injection policy, the arguments haven't been published yet.
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20080416%5cACQDJON200804161045DOWJONESDJONLINE000724.htm&&mypage=newsheadlines&title=Supreme%20Court%20Upholds%20Kentucky's%20Lethal%20Injection%20Procedures
-
This isn't a yes or no type question, the answer isn't as clear as black or white.
No for the most part, but yes in certain type situations. Some people commit crimes that are so horrible and disgusting that they shouldn't have to privilege to live.
-
Kaworu, I wasn't saying that without the death penalty people would go around killing murderers, I was saying that the best way to kill murderers is with the death penalty.
Well there is another alternative.
-
I'm against it, it's an outdated and barbaric practice.
-
Against it.
There have been times where a person was killed then found to be innocent and I think it's much too much of a risk.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/06/japan
sorry to bump but I was curious about Japan's death penalty and holy fuck
He is offered a final cigarette and even manages to share a joke with prison staff. In a dramatic finale, the chants of Buddhists priests are punctured by the opening of the trapdoor and the snap of the rope as it tightens around the condemned man's neck.
Death does not come until 14 minutes later, when prison officers confirm that his heart has stopped beating.
Aside from the introduction of stronger nylon rope, little about the way Japan executes its criminals has changed in the intervening years.
or my favorite part
Typically, death row inmates learn of their execution just minutes before they are led to the gallows; their families are informed later so they can collect the corpse for cremation.
Though Japan's "secret executions" enjoy widespread public support, they have been denounced by Amnesty International, the EU and the UN, which has called for a global moratorium on the death penalty.
death row inmates learn of their execution just minutes before they are led to the gallows
secret executions
thats it, fuck japan, start the country over.
-
We had a debate about a week ago in school. Basically, it's just pointless., in any sense. However, I'm of the idea that certain human beings do need to be abolished from planer earth. :)
-
This is a tough one. I agree that criminals should be punished, but who are we to decide whether someone should live or die? In short, I have no idea whether this is right or wrong. I might be able to say that it depends on the situation, but even still, I just don't know.
But I can say this. If someone decided to take someone I loved away from me, I would want nothing less than to see them dead.
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/06/japan
sorry to bump but I was curious about Japan's death penalty and holy fuck
or my favorite part
thats it, fuck japan, start the country over.
are you really suprised by this though? Japan seems to be trying to make itself the WORST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD on purpose.
-
Kaworu, I wasn't saying that without the death penalty people would go around killing murderers, I was saying that the best way to kill murderers is with the death penalty.
your thought pattern:
murderers are bad, how do we kill them? death penalty!
the thought pattern you should have:
murderers are bad, how do we stop them murdering?
as you can see, this thought pattern has many more solutions than death.
This isn't a yes or no type question, the answer isn't as clear as black or white.
No for the most part, but yes in certain type situations. Some people commit crimes that are so horrible and disgusting that they shouldn't have to privilege to live.
well maybe that's why life isn't a privilege, it's a right
-
are you really suprised by this though? Japan seems to be trying to make itself the WORST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD on purpose.
Yeah man, but if you go over there they are SO fucking peaceful
like, the only people that start shit over there are the US military they let loose in the city.
-
The way I see it, killing murderers and, oh, let's throw in pedophiles just for shits and giggles, is perfectly fine. Why? Because it's right? No. Because it's economical. One less killer or child-fucker on the streets, sure, yay. But it's also one less inmate that we have to pay to have three meals a day and a place to live. A lot of people don't get that, but that's another story. Stop all this CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS and WERE NO BETTER THAN TERRORISTS bullshit.
-
are you really suprised by this though? Japan seems to be trying to make itself the WORST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD on purpose.
Yeah, they'd be pretty successful at that too, if only it weren't for them having the second largest economy in the world, one of the lowest unemployment rates, constant top 10 HDI rankings and an average life expectancy of over 80 years...
The way I see it, killing murderers and, oh, let's throw in pedophiles just for shits and giggles, is perfectly fine. Why? Because it's right? No. Because it's economical.
We already went over this. It's actually more expensive to kill prisoners than to keep them imprisoned for a lifetime.
-
The way I see it, killing murderers and, oh, let's throw in pedophiles just for shits and giggles, is perfectly fine. Why? Because it's right? No. Because it's economical. One less killer or child-fucker on the streets, sure, yay. But it's also one less inmate that we have to pay to have three meals a day and a place to live. A lot of people don't get that, but that's another story. Stop all this CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS and WERE NO BETTER THAN TERRORISTS bullshit.
this is stupid as hell because not only do most murderers never commit another murder or have an urge to, but because the system will never be able to be accurate enough to screen out non-murderers.
also yeah you know some of us have ethics and don't enjoy the thought of murdering another human being for some atavistic hammurabi code bullshit because it might incapacitate them from committing another crime.
QUICKLY! CUT OUT ALL STALKER'S EYES! ALSO THIEVES SHALL BE HOBBLED!
-
Yeah, they'd be pretty successful at that too, if only it weren't for them having the second largest economy in the world, one of the lowest unemployment rates, constant top 10 HDI rankings and an average life expectancy of over 80 years...
But they also have the 10th highest suicide rate in the world, so I think what Kaworu said makes sense
-
also yeah you know some of us have ethics and don't enjoy the thought of murdering another human being for some recidivist hammurabi code bullshit because it might incapacitate them from committing another crime.
when someone gets a life sentence it's pretty safe to say your life is over. i don't understand how the ethical angle leans on the side of life imprisonment. so it's cool to take away essentially all of someone's rights, except life? to me this just seems like you are pushing aside the problem so you don't have to deal with it. are you honestly telling me you would prefer life in prison versus an execution? i cannot understand why anyone would want the former in this situation. the natural human instinct to survive is obviously going to make people NOT WANT TO DIE but if you think throwing someone in a box and forgetting about them is somehow better than cutting out the bullshit and just killing them, then i disagree strongly.
given how sentencing people to life in prison isn't going to go away anytime soon, please tell me how it is much more better than being dead.
-
when someone gets a life sentence it's pretty safe to say your life is over. i don't understand how the ethical angle leans on the side of life imprisonment. so it's cool to take away essentially all of someone's rights, except life? to me this just seems like you are pushing aside the problem so you don't have to deal with it. are you honestly telling me you would prefer life in prison versus an execution? i cannot understand why anyone would want the former in this situation. the natural human instinct to survive is obviously going to make people NOT WANT TO DIE but if you think throwing someone in a box and forgetting about them is somehow better than cutting out the bullshit and just killing them, then i disagree strongly.
given how sentencing people to life in prison isn't going to go away anytime soon, please tell me how it is much more better than being dead.
because...you're alive. I'd always prefer life to execution. most prisoners do as well (to the degree that outside of Manson I can think of no one who wanted to have the death penalty. SOCRATES I guess).
saying life imprisonment is the END OF ALL THINGS is not necessarily true. most lifers read books, they have conversations, they write letters, they become religious, they do interviews. some of the most political men I've ever read about were sentenced to life in prison. prison is obviously awful but yeah prison life is better than no life (as it should be).
-
because...you're alive. I'd always prefer life to execution. most prisoners do as well (to the degree that outside of Manson I can think of no one who wanted to have the death penalty. SOCRATES I guess).
saying life imprisonment is the END OF ALL THINGS is not necessarily true. most lifers read books, they have conversations, they write letters, they become religious, they do interviews. some of the most political men I've ever read about were sentenced to life in prison. prison is obviously awful but yeah prison life is better than no life (as it should be).
being alive isn't really a valid reason in my opinion. i'm also for euthanasia, and i don't know your position on it, but if you are also for it you must understand some circumstances in life are not worth living for. also, why do they have suicide watches? do you know the statistics on prison suicides? i don't myself, but would be willing to bet the rate is many times higher than those outside prison. for this reason alone it makes sense to me to at least have it as an option, and as a secondary, for clear cut cases where there is zero doubt someone committed a crime (also multiple murder). in the event of a clear cut case, there should be zero difficulty obtaining an execution and should cost substantially less. i was suprised to hear how many cases try and go for the death penalty on such a bad case / evidence, and no one who has the slightest chance of being innocent should be considered for it.
you talk about how you can still DO THINGS but in all reality it amounts to almost nothing. how low do the standards of prison have to be in order for death to be more humane? you'll find a lot of different answers for this, and which is why i disagree with the ethics side of this.
-
being alive isn't really a valid reason in my opinion. i'm also for euthanasia, and i don't know your position on it, but if you are also for it you must understand some circumstances in life are not worth living for. also, why do they have suicide watches? do you know the statistics on prison suicides? i don't myself, but would be willing to bet the rate is many times higher than those outside prison. for this reason alone it makes sense to me to at least have it as an option, and as a secondary, for clear cut cases where there is zero doubt someone committed a crime (also multiple murder). in the event of a clear cut case, there should be zero difficulty obtaining an execution and should cost substantially less. i was suprised to hear how many cases try and go for the death penalty on such a bad case / evidence, and no one who has the slightest chance of being innocent should be considered for it.
you talk about how you can still DO THINGS but in all reality it amounts to almost nothing. how low do the standards of prison have to be in order for death to be more humane? you'll find a lot of different answers for this, and which is why i disagree with the ethics side of this.
I know suicides are higher in prisons but actually a lot of people say this is because of the type of person that goes into prison is prone to it, not because the prison itself. also I understand there are bad conditions, but life in prison is not one of those. like, what's your definition of DO THINGS? Tookie Williams was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize while on death row for a book he wrote in prison. you can still do quite a bit in prison, but only if you're not a general shithead so you have access to it (and most lifers tend to stop being ROWDY YOUTHS when they are pushing sixty).
the standards in prison are high enough that it's uh EASILY BETTER than death I'd say. it's all personal but as I said earlier, almost no one opts for the death penalty (they could do this). prison sucks; you have no freedom, there is prison violence and rape, and it's a generally shitty place. but for the vast majority of prisoners and people life in prison is far preferable to death! I'm kind of surprised you'd compare this to euthanasia, where a person is in constant pain. life in prison is of course a bit cruel, but it's always going to be somewhat cruel when you speak of punitive measures. it's far better than ending your life!
-
i agree that life in prison is preferrable to death. life is always preferrable to death - excluding cases when you know that nothing but unpleasantness lies before you, like with a terminal illness in it's closing stages (so i think euthanesia is the right thing to do in some cases)
in prison, you know it's gonna generally suck. the people you meet every day will be even worse than the ones outside and you'll probably get battered all the time, especially if you are trying to be at all decent. but i think amongst all of this there are moments which a person could enjoy, and things they could still do which they could be proud of. i'm not saying it'd be easy or that it happens all the time but i have read stories of lifers who have written books and stuff.
also, after an amount of time passes, prison life would stop being prison life and just turn into normal life. you would get adjusted to the everyday horrors and constraints of the place and carve out niches where you can enjoy yourself, i mean, it isn't hell. people who have been in for years and years and are known by the staff and the other inmates would probably be given some slack too, given special privileges or just left alone - i'm not basing that on anything, i'm just saying people in prisons are still people and not all of them are gonna be pure evil. actually i don't really know what i'm talking about but this is what i gather?
but i'm only really talking about i don't know, kids and young adults who get involved in drugs and end up killing people. maybe these people could find a measure of peace with life in prison eventually. this is really grey area stuff, because there are people i have read about or seen on the news who really sound nothing like human to me, and i just don't know how to deal with that.
i'd choose life in prison over death anyway, maybe i'd end up getting stabbed to death a week later but it's that or nothing i guess.
-
I know suicides are higher in prisons but actually a lot of people say this is because of the type of person that goes into prison is prone to it, not because the prison itself. also I understand there are bad conditions, but life in prison is not one of those. like, what's your definition of DO THINGS? Tookie Williams was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize while on death row for a book he wrote in prison. you can still do quite a bit in prison, but only if you're not a general shithead so you have access to it (and most lifers tend to stop being ROWDY YOUTHS when they are pushing sixty).
the standards in prison are high enough that it's uh EASILY BETTER than death I'd say. it's all personal but as I said earlier, almost no one opts for the death penalty (they could do this). prison sucks; you have no freedom, there is prison violence and rape, and it's a generally shitty place. but for the vast majority of prisoners and people life in prison is far preferable to death! I'm kind of surprised you'd compare this to euthanasia, where a person is in constant pain. life in prison is of course a bit cruel, but it's always going to be somewhat cruel when you speak of punitive measures. it's far better than ending your life!
there's really no use debating this any futher. i disagree that life in prison is better than death. i am not some RON PAUL GIVE ME GUNS OR GIVE ME DEATH freedom nut, but if the great majority of my freedoms are taken from me i really don't see the point in living. add to the fact most of the people in for life did a terrible crime, living with that kind of burden doesn't seem very pleasent either. if you think life in prison is better for you that is fine with me, but i don't like how you paint the death penalty black by saying it's unethical. you know, maybe the current state of the death penalty is shitty, but fundamentally i don't see how it's a bad idea as long as you are not bringing REVENGE into the equation.
the comparison to euthanasia is basic, in other words, they share the fact that your circumstances will never improve and you are in a bad situation. i obviously agree prison is better than constant pain, but those are the common links. if you could understand that, i'm saying you could make the connection that the death penalty isn't completely insane.
http://almost no one opts for the death penalty (they could do this).
are you telling me prisoners in for life can request the death penalty? maybe i am reading this wrong, but don't a lot of states outlaw the death penalty? (this applies to US only obviously)
-
there's really no use debating this any futher. i disagree that life in prison is better than death. i am not some RON PAUL GIVE ME GUNS OR GIVE ME DEATH freedom nut, but if the great majority of my freedoms are taken from me i really don't see the point in living. add to the fact most of the people in for life did a terrible crime, living with that kind of burden doesn't seem very pleasent either. if you think life in prison is better for you that is fine with me, but i don't like how you paint the death penalty black by saying it's unethical. you know, maybe the current state of the death penalty is shitty, but fundamentally i don't see how it's a bad idea as long as you are not bringing REVENGE into the equation.
the comparison to euthanasia is basic, in other words, they share the fact that your circumstances will never improve and you are in a bad situation. i obviously agree prison is better than constant pain, but those are the common links. if you could understand that, i'm saying you could make the connection that the death penalty isn't completely insane.
I see what you're saying but uh...we're talking about the sacrifice of the majority of your freedoms against sacrificing ALL OF THEM. when you're dead you aren't exactly free to do anything being that you can't.
also I don't think euthanizing a patient who is going to be in constant pain for the remainder of their incredibly brief life is the same as being in pain from life imprisonment. ignoring the punitive effect of life in prison (basically you have to be in SOME DEGREE OF DISCOMFORT or it's just a vacation), I just...I can't even see the comparison man! I've been to my share of prisons and they are bad but we're balancing that against death. the level of pain is not only in flux (older prisoners are almost always treated better by guards and other prisoners) but it's nowhere near the same as something like incredibly painful terminal cancer.
are you telling me prisoners in for life can request the death penalty? maybe i am reading this wrong, but don't a lot of states outlaw the death penalty? (this applies to US only obviously)
a lot of states do but let's face it most people can kill themselves rather easily even in prison. since the lethal injection has been called into question as far as humanity, if they were slightly committed they could do this relatively painlessly. also honestly I bet the courts have never dealt with a case like this but maybe they could make a transfer to a pro-death penalty state for someone who just does not want to live without freedom.
but this is not something that happens.
-
I see what you're saying but uh...we're talking about the sacrifice of the majority of your freedoms against sacrificing ALL OF THEM. when you're dead you aren't exactly free to do anything being that you can't.
much like i am not going to convince you death is better in some circumstances, you are not going to convince me. this is a clear difference of opinion and i am simply saying that ethics shouldn't apply here.
also I don't think euthanizing a patient who is going to be in constant pain for the remainder of their incredibly brief life is the same as being in pain from life imprisonment. ignoring the punitive effect of life in prison (basically you have to be in SOME DEGREE OF DISCOMFORT or it's just a vacation), I just...I can't even see the comparison man! I've been to my share of prisons and they are bad but we're balancing that against death. the level of pain is not only in flux (older prisoners are almost always treated better by guards and other prisoners) but it's nowhere near the same as something like incredibly painful terminal cancer.
my mind is at a blank right now but i recall before someone who was paralyzed from the neck down who tried their absolute hardest to get euthanized and in the end just ended up getting help from friends to kill themself because the government wouldn't agree with it. this isn't a case of pain, but freedom. once again, this is much worse than prison but everyone has a line. how many freedoms do i have to take away from you before you decide being dead is better? there is no right or wrong answer here.
a lot of states do but let's face it most people can kill themselves rather easily even in prison. since the lethal injection has been called into question as far as humanity, if they were slightly committed they could do this relatively painlessly. also honestly I bet the courts have never dealt with a case like this but maybe they could make a transfer to a pro-death penalty state for someone who just does not want to live without freedom.
but this is not something that happens.
so if people can kill themselves easily why even have euthanizing? because it isn't ideal. this also doesn't factor that many places entirely outlaw the death penalty.
it seems like i am part of a very small minority here, but if even a fraction of people believe what i do, i see no harm in letting that option be on that table.
-
welllll i think you do know the harm, in that the system will never be perfect and innocent people will get killed.
what's confusing me is this:
much like i am not going to convince you death is better in some circumstances, you are not going to convince me. this is a clear difference of opinion and i am simply saying that ethics shouldn't apply here.
like, I don't see it as a difference of opinion. how is dying not losing more freedoms? a man who cannot MOVE seems to be a bit of an extreme example since that loses almost every freedom and where a person can rightfully say they can't DO ANYTHING. I think you're drawing your line in the sand waaaaaay too high man and I'm sure a lot of people would agree so I guess that is opinion but it's one I can't quite follow at all!
-
welllll i think you do know the harm, in that the system will never be perfect and innocent people will get killed.
i already stated this should never be considered in a case where there is any doubt whatsoever if they did it. i specifically stated a double murder or worse case, in this event there is typically bound to be a lot of evidence and very little room for getting the wrong man. if there is not enough evidence to say without a doubt they are guilty, it would not be considered at all. at top top of my head a perfect case where death penalty shouldn't be used is the scott peterson case. the cases i refer to are clear cut where there is essentially no way the defendant couldn't have done it (or they plead guilty).
the current state of the death penalty i don't agree with in other words.
like, I don't see it as a difference of opinion. how is dying not losing more freedoms? a man who cannot MOVE seems to be a bit of an extreme example since that loses almost every freedom and where a person can rightfully say they can't DO ANYTHING. I think you're drawing your line in the sand waaaaaay too high man and I'm sure a lot of people would agree so I guess that is opinion but it's one I can't quite follow at all!
i never said dying had more freedoms. much like not being able to move, you can still see and communicate which is more freedoms than being dead. though many of us agree that is extremely horrible and giving someone the choice of dying is not a bad idea. it also really doesn't matter what the majority of people say when it comes to a decision that's only going to effect you. the analogy would make more sense to me if a free man committed suicide, but for someone who is going to spend the rest of their life in jail i see no reason why death is so much more worse. once again, if you want life in prison, this is perfectly fine with me, but i don't see why the option should be taken off the table entirely (add to the fact the whole SUICIDE WATCH thing).
-
But if you're dead you can't care about not having freedom because you can't (assuming there is nothing after death)