The Death Penalty

[Saru]

Why exactly are they being accused of that, because Isreal is kinda in a state of !@#$ed up, so their situation is different, but I don't know so maybe there's something I don't know.

 

It's not a topic I have read a lot about, but there are several compelling arguments that the Israeli government is guilty of the genocide of the Palestinian people. Much like the Sri Lankan government for example with the Tamils. There are many complexities in identifying people who are responsible for genocide, and it's not always black and white when deciding who has blood on their hands. 

[PiratePaul]

Pirate paul...yup agreed there is nothing to stop any criminal from committing the same crime or other crime when they get out of prison...But what is there to say if he/she will commit a crime when he/she is out? He or she is supposed to be sentence to death just bcos he/she might....commit crime when they are out of prison?

 

who is to decide on that? I heard of  criminals who truly repents after their time in prison and remain good citizens till the end of their life....and to sentence them to death just bcos there is nothing to stop them from committing crime after their time in prison? come on....who are we to decide? sorry I don't want to appear before GOD on Judgement day with blood on my hands. 

I think you can tell. If a person appears before a jury, and says "I !@#$ed a 6 year old and enjoyed it." That !@#$shit deserves to be killed.

[RedArmy BushMan]

It's not a topic I have read a lot about, but there are several compelling arguments that the Israeli government is guilty of the genocide of the Palestinian people. Much like the Sri Lankan government for example with the Tamils. There are many complexities in identifying people who are responsible for genocide, and it's not always black and white when deciding who has blood on their hands. 

That sounds like a much different situation, though I could be wrong. Last I saw there were Palestinians rioting against the Jewish populations and even before that there were many conflicts between the two groups stemming all the way back to post WWII when the territories of Israel were divided up supposably based on majorities of population (Palestinians vs Jewish) yet the Jews were given much larger and important territories than the populations dictated.

[Ayayay]

That sounds like a much different situation, though I could be wrong. Last I saw there were Palestinians rioting against the Jewish populations and even before that there were many conflicts between the two groups stemming all the way back to post WWII when the territories of Israel were divided up supposably based on majorities of population (Palestinians vs Jewish) yet the Jews were given much larger and important territories than the populations dictated.

And they kept taking and taking...

Anyways I have a feeling that talking about Palestine is soon going to get the topic locked, best to leave it as is and not get off topic to much. If y'all want to start a debate of Israel vs Palestine then go ahead in another thread 

[Karl Marx]

4.1% may be innocent, even if all 4.1% are innocent then that means 95.9% of the people on death row are in fact guilty of a crime that was determined by a court of law to be worthy of the death penalty.

 

Yes but how many cases are like her?

 

So if you think Hitler deserved death, where would you draw the line?

 

Does the fact that most of those convicted are guilty atone for the fact that our government regularly kills innocent people?

 

My point was that the death penalty is not always an appropriate punishment, even for heinous crimes. Also, you don't know if killing a criminal will benefit society as a whole.

 

I have no idea. That's why we shouldn't have the death penalty: we don't truly know if someone deserves to die. We don't know if Hitler would have done something terrible if he had lived. In that case, shouldn't he get the benefit of the doubt? Yeah, but... it's Hitler! Arguments like "yeah, but it's Hitler" show that we don't think rationally about whether someone deserves to die. At the end of the day, people are executed because we feel like they should.

[Karl Marx]

I think you can tell. If a person appears before a jury, and says "I !@#$ed a 6 year old and enjoyed it." That !@#$!@#$ deserves to be killed.

That person needs mental help. Would you really punish someone for something they did only because they were completely out of their mind?

To be fair, if that 6 year old was my child, I would definitely want the perpetrator to die. See my post above about rationality vs feelings.

[PiratePaul]

Does the fact that most of those convicted are guilty atone for the fact that our government regularly kills innocent people?

 

My point was that the death penalty is not always an appropriate punishment, even for heinous crimes. Also, you don't know if killing a criminal will benefit society as a whole.

 

I have no idea. That's why we shouldn't have the death penalty: we don't truly know if someone deserves to die. We don't know if Hitler would have done something terrible if he had lived. In that case, shouldn't he get the benefit of the doubt? Yeah, but... it's Hitler! Arguments like "yeah, but it's Hitler" show that we don't think rationally about whether someone deserves to die. At the end of the day, people are executed because we feel like they should.

Well, look at this way, the Nazis that survived WW2 have all died now, and they didn't commit any crimes after WW2. (They couldn't. They were all rounded up and imprisoned, if i remember correctly.) But, criminals also commit crimes while in prison. The kill, rape, and assault other inmates. That happens in almost every prison. Like has been stated before, you can never know what a person is going to do. But, I believe that a person that has commited a crime multiple times in the past is just as likely to commit a similar crime in the future.

 

(i hope sheepy is not still banning for Nazi references.)

[RedArmy BushMan]

And they kept taking and taking...

Anyways I have a feeling that talking about Palestine is soon going to get the topic locked, best to leave it as is and not get off topic to much. If y'all want to start a debate of Israel vs Palestine then go ahead in another thread 

Not really, she was bringing up how it's a matter of perspective and they are using the death penalty (I think, if that wasn't your point I misunderstood) and I was showing how it was completely different. Still on topic

 

 

Does the fact that most of those convicted are guilty atone for the fact that our government regularly kills innocent people?

 

My point was that the death penalty is not always an appropriate punishment, even for heinous crimes. Also, you don't know if killing a criminal will benefit society as a whole.

 

I have no idea. That's why we shouldn't have the death penalty: we don't truly know if someone deserves to die. We don't know if Hitler would have done something terrible if he had lived. In that case, shouldn't he get the benefit of the doubt? Yeah, but... it's Hitler! Arguments like "yeah, but it's Hitler" show that we don't think rationally about whether someone deserves to die. At the end of the day, people are executed because we feel like they should.

I think it does. The system will never be perfect, the inoccents will always be punished, and very few of those 4.1% will ever get that one appeal that proves their innocence, so either way we are treating them as a criminal, it can also be reasoned that we are treating them worse by forcing them to spend the rest of their life in a place full of criminals.

 

This is true, I will agree with that, but as you said "not always" sometimes it is needed, a serial killer kills 12 people, and we can prove it was him, it's appropriate, killing is a pleasure for him and there is a good chance he'll continue in prison if he is truly mentally unstable.

[Sketchy]

Death sentence....lets be honest with ourselves....do we actually see a much reduced crime rate in countries that carry out death sentence...?

 

if people are really deterred by death sentence then why on earth there is still murder , rape and etc in the countries that imposed death sentence on those crime?

 

the purpose of the punishment is to stop others from doing/repeating the crime.....and when people still repeat or involved in those crimes....then fact speak for itself...that punishment doesn't work and something else should replace it

There isn't really any way to deter crime. People who commit crimes most of the time aren't worried about the consequences. Its not like they wake up in the morning and go:

 

"Hmm, so if I rape that women, I'll get X years in prison, that doesn't seems like it's worth it."

 

"Hmm, if I kill that guy, I'll get X years in prison, but I hate him. Totally worth it. *kills the guy*.

 

Most people commit crimes on impulse, they don't sit down and weight their options. On top, anyone who is heavy into organized/gang crimes isn't exactly fretting over how many years they've spent in jail.

 

The death sentence isn't a solution, life imprisonment has the same effect, segregation from the general community. Like saru said above, the risk of executing an innocent person, something that has happened in the past, isn't worth the tradeoff.

[RedArmy BushMan]

anyone who is heavy into organized/gang crimes isn't exactly fretting over how many years they've spent in jail.

I'm going to disagree on that. People who regularly commit crimes, gangs, solo, mafioso, what ever, do worry, but they weigh it against what they believe they'll get out of it, over time it becomes their life. If the didn't fret over the conequences, people wouldn't rat, there wouldn't be informants or people who give up their partners for a better sentance.

[RedArmy BushMan]

I did some thinking and I'd like to get everyone's opinion (yes it relates) let's pretend all these people are alive, their crimes are recent, and we have all the facts we currently have. How would you sentence these people. Please include specific punishment, how long they are to be sentenced if not death, any special additions to there punishment, and whether or not they will be rehibilitated, or given special treatment.

 

Pol Pot: Leader of the Khmer Rouge which is responsible for 1.4-2.2 million deaths.

 

Andres Behring Breivik: Killed 77 people, and injured 319

 

Jeffrey Dahmer: Killed 17 people but was also convicted of child molestation

 

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold: Killed 13 people and injured 21

 

James Eagan Holmes: Killed 12 injured 70

 

George Zimmerman: Killed 1

 

These are ordered from most killed to least killed. I picked them because they were the first I thought of (besides Hitler)

[Sketchy]

I'm going to disagree on that. People who regularly commit crimes, gangs, solo, mafioso, what ever, do worry, but they weigh it against what they believe they'll get out of it, over time it becomes their life. If the didn't fret over the conequences, people wouldn't rat, there wouldn't be informants or people who give up their partners for a better sentance.

I said "how many years". The point is that the death sentence is not a very effective deterrent. Most criminals will be more concerned with getting away with a crime than not actually committing it, which is basically what you are saying.

 

Overall, the death sentence doesn't solve anything. A person could just as easily be imprisoned for life.

[Karl Marx]

This is true, I will agree with that, but as you said "not always" sometimes it is needed, a serial killer kills 12 people, and we can prove it was him, it's appropriate, killing is a pleasure for him and there is a good chance he'll continue in prison if he is truly mentally unstable.

 

If a person is truly mentally unstable, and wouldn't be killing anybody if they were sane, why not rehabilitate them? That way, future crimes are prevented and the person isn't executed

 

I did some thinking and I'd like to get everyone's opinion (yes it relates) let's pretend all these people are alive, their crimes are recent, and we have all the facts we currently have. How would you sentence these people. Please include specific punishment, how long they are to be sentenced if not death, any special additions to there punishment, and whether or not they will be rehibilitated, or given special treatment.

 

Pol Pot: Leader of the Khmer Rouge which is responsible for 1.4-2.2 million deaths.

 

Andres Behring Breivik: Killed 77 people, and injured 319

 

Jeffrey Dahmer: Killed 17 people but was also convicted of child molestation

 

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold: Killed 13 people and injured 21

 

James Eagan Holmes: Killed 12 injured 70

 

George Zimmerman: Killed 1

 

These are ordered from most killed to least killed. I picked them because they were the first I thought of (besides Hitler)

Pol Pot: Whether in prison or not, he could hardly have lived a normal life being known as the guy who killed over a million people, and probably would have faced violence. Executing him would spare him from facing a vengeful population. But that's beside the point. Reason tells me that it's highly unlikely that he would have been able to cause mass death again, but instinct tells me he should die because what he did was horrible. I don't know how I would sentence him.

 

Breivik: An initial psychiatric report said he was paranoid schizophrenic and was psychotic at the time of the attacks. If that was the case, I would say he should receive mental help. However, a second report said he only had narcissistic personality disorder and was not psychotic during the attacks. If this is true, then there is no doubt he would kill again.

 

"Breivik alluded to himself as the future regent of Norway, master of life and death, while calling himself "inordinately loving" and "Europe's most perfect knight since WWII". He was convinced that he was a warrior in a "low intensity civil war" and had been chosen to save his people. Breivik described plans to carry out further "executions of categories A, B and C traitors" by the thousands, the psychiatrists included, and to organise Norwegians in reservations for the purpose of selective breeding. Breivik believed himself to be the "knight Justicar grand master" of a Templar organisation."

 

Due to the immense threat he poses to society, he should be either indefinitely imprisoned or executed.

 

Jeffrey Dahmer: He was found to be legally sane at his trial. He deserved the same as Breivik, for the same reasons.

 

Eric Harris: It has been determined that he was most likely a psychopath (not the same as being psychotic), meaning he was aware of what he was doing and why he was doing it. The content of his journals indicate he would kill again. Had he not killed himself, he should have gotten life in prison or the death penalty.

 

Dylan Klebold: He was a depressive, but not insane. Same as Harris.

 

James Holmes: His sanity is still being debated in court. As such, I do not know how he should be sentenced.

 

George Zimmerman: While he should not have been following Martin (he was neighborhood watch, not a police officer), I do not feel that he should be punished for self defense.

[PiratePaul]

I agree with almost all of that. I do not believe in rehabilitation, it is too unlikely to work and then release a serial killer back into society.

[WISD0MTREE]

Death sentence....lets be honest with ourselves....do we actually see a much reduced crime rate in countries that carry out death sentence...?

 

if people are really deterred by death sentence then why on earth there is still murder , rape and etc in the countries that imposed death sentence on those crime?

 

the purpose of the punishment is to stop others from doing/repeating the crime.....and when people still repeat or involved in those crimes....then fact speak for itself...that punishment doesn't work and something else should replace it

We have the death penalty here in America. How many people do we execute? Not nearly enough to get evidence if it does or doesn't work. The only evidence source are pretty much polls. But still, those show that the death penalty does deter crime. It won't stop all crime, though, since a lot of crime is reactional. 

Plus it is cheaper, so it might help to get out of this.

Edited July 8, 2014 by WISD0MTREE

[Ayayay]

We have the death penalty here in America. How many people do we execute? Not nearly enough to get evidence if it does or doesn't work. The only evidence source are pretty much polls. But still, those show that the death penalty does deter crime. It won't stop all crime, though, since a lot of crime is reactional. 

Plus it is cheaper, so it might help to get out of this.

Death penalty is actually really expensive. Far more so than just throwing someone into prison for life.

 

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/criminal-law-review/issues/v03-1/Cost-of-Death-Penalty.pdf

[Grillick]

Only if you're concerned with administering it justly.

[PiratePaul]

I say we do public executions.
Just take the criminal and hang him up in the street on the side of a truck and let the military test their aim.

[WISD0MTREE]

Death penalty is actually really expensive. Far more so than just throwing someone into prison for life.

 

http://www.law.du.edu/documents/criminal-law-review/issues/v03-1/Cost-of-Death-Penalty.pdf

Can we mark messages like this spam? We have gone over this twice already.

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-next-time-someone-says-the-death-penalty-costs-more-than-life-in-prison-show-them-this-article

 

Only if you're concerned with administering it justly.

Basically this. Unless there is a deterrent effect, in which case, we would be spending less on police if there were first more executions.

[Ayayay]

Can we mark messages like this spam? We have gone over this twice already.

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/the-next-time-someone-says-the-death-penalty-costs-more-than-life-in-prison-show-them-this-article

Maybe you need more articles to defend you?

Here is a few more for my side

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/KSCost2014.pdf

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/IDCost.pdf

http://www.wsba.org/~/media/Files/WSBA-wide%20Documents/wsba%20death%20penalty%20report.ashx

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/LoyolaCalifCosts.pdf

http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/CCFAJFinalReport.pdf

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/CostsDPMaryland.pdf

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FederalDPCost2010.pdf

http://www.njadp.org/forms/cost/Final%20Exec%20summary.html

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/deathpenalty.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8382.pdf

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CookCostRpt.pdf

 

Good enough for you?

[WISD0MTREE]

Maybe you need more articles to defend you?

Here is a few more for my side

 

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/KSCost2014.pdf

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/IDCost.pdf

http://www.wsba.org/~/media/Files/WSBA-wide%20Documents/wsba%20death%20penalty%20report.ashx

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/LoyolaCalifCosts.pdf

http://www.ccfaj.org/documents/CCFAJFinalReport.pdf

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/CostsDPMaryland.pdf

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FederalDPCost2010.pdf

http://www.njadp.org/forms/cost/Final%20Exec%20summary.html

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/deathpenalty.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8382.pdf

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CookCostRpt.pdf

 

Good enough for you?

Read the link. It says that it currently isn't because of everyone being opposed to it. If it was accepted as punishment, it would be cheaper. 

[Ayayay]

Read the link. It says that it currently isn't because of everyone being opposed to it. If it was accepted as punishment, it would be cheaper. 

That's like saying that doubling defense spending will immediately stop terrorism, oh that by halving it bombs are going to go off every day.

[WISD0MTREE]

That's like saying that doubling defense spending will immediately stop terrorism, oh that by halving it bombs are going to go off every day.

It would be cheaper even if we finally ruled in the Supreme Court that it wasn't cruel or unusual punishment. I believe it was, but people still try to use that. 

[Don Juan]

I'm not sure I can support capital punishment (except when it's beyond reasonable doubt and they've done something truly heinous), but corporal punishment, sure.

[RedArmy BushMan]

Noticing a lot of avoiding my little questionair.