Taijitu
Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Chairman Steve on April 16, 2008, 07:27:01 PM
-
Click (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/16cnd-scotus.html?ex=1366084800&en=54c1649860449f95&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)
Is the death penalty constitutional?
-
YES DAMNIT!
-
If the crime fits the punishment, then yes. The law of the land is the Golden rule. Do unto others as you would have done unto you. So if you murder someone you're asking for the same. Under Constitutional law there's two basic rules. Don't harm anyone and don't infringe on another's rights.
-
I really like the idea that it should exsist, but it shouldn't be used unless it is one of the most disgusting crimes. Plus I feel DNA evidence HAS to be included for it to happen (plus other evidence of course)
-
I'm not really sure if the death penalty is morally right, but it's not unconstitutional. In terms of the method used, I don't understand the emphasis on painlessness. If you're against causing pain to a condemned prisoner, why do you support putting him to death?
-
I really like the idea that it should exsist, but it shouldn't be used unless it is one of the most disgusting crimes. Plus I feel DNA evidence HAS to be included for it to happen (plus other evidence of course)
Eye for an eye. No more, no less. How is that hard to understand? The whole DNA has to be included is kinda silly. DNA evidence can be falsified just as easily as anything else.
I'm not really sure if the death penalty is morally right, but it's not unconstitutional. In terms of the method used, I don't understand the emphasis on painlessness. If you're against causing pain to a condemned prisoner, why do you support putting him to death?
Is it morally right to murder someone? Do the crime and you should face the penalty for your actions. I personally don't care what the method would be. Firing squad is just as good. Whatever gets the penalty done.
-
i am not agenst the death penalty for any it unmoral or any of that bs i just think that they are getting the easy way out i would rather watch the sob rot in prison for the rest of their life in a small cell by themself
-
i am not agenst the death penalty for any it unmoral or any of that bs i just think that they are getting the easy way out i would rather watch the sob rot in prison for the rest of their life in a small cell by themself
Not a bad idea but why pay for it?
If the crime is bad enough I am for it.
-
Well, maybe not DNA, but there should at least be more evidence required to get the death penalty, over the evidence required to get a guilty verdict.
-
I'm not really sure if the death penalty is morally right, but it's not unconstitutional. In terms of the method used, I don't understand the emphasis on painlessness. If you're against causing pain to a condemned prisoner, why do you support putting him to death?
Is it morally right to murder someone? Do the crime and you should face the penalty for your actions. I personally don't care what the method would be. Firing squad is just as good. Whatever gets the penalty done.
I should clarify, I didn't say it definitely is immoral in every case that the state puts someone to death. I said I'm not sure about it. It's a complicated issue.
I agree with you about the method - if we're passing a death sentence on someone, he's going to end up dead and buried whether we shoot chemicals into his bloodstream, hang him or shoot him. People who comfort themselves with the fact that the method of execution used is physically painless are missing the point entirely.
-
i am not agenst the death penalty for any it unmoral or any of that bs i just think that they are getting the easy way out i would rather watch the sob rot in prison for the rest of their life in a small cell by themself
Not a bad idea but why pay for it?
If the crime is bad enough I am for it.
its cheaper to leave them in jail cause of the extra court cost and the 10+ years they will be in anyway and the acutal exicution than to kill them and it will give them a chance to maybe leave something positive (of course not letting them out ever)
-
i am not agenst the death penalty for any it unmoral or any of that bs i just think that they are getting the easy way out i would rather watch the sob rot in prison for the rest of their life in a small cell by themself
Not a bad idea but why pay for it?
If the crime is bad enough I am for it.
its cheaper to leave them in jail cause of the extra court cost and the 10+ years they will be in anyway and the acutal exicution than to kill them and it will give them a chance to maybe leave something positive (of course not letting them out ever)
How is life in prison cheaper than a bullet?
-
depending on the idea.
-
I am pro-death penalty.
-
I hope it's not too painful........ :trout: :smack: :whip: Ouch, none of those. Well, the fish wouldn't hurt much.
-
You people are missing a few important points though:
1) You can't give the state the right to do something we as individuals doesn't have the right to do.
2) We can never be 100% sure that someone is guilty of any specific crime, and since a death sentence can't be undone once executed, it's not acceptable in a civilized nation under rule of law.
3) Penalties as a deterrent doesn't work since all criminals intend to not get caught and if they succeed, the penalty they COULD have been sentenced to doesn't mean shit.
4)Preventive and progressive social policies at an early stage to eliminate poverty and to promote equality and cooperation is both cheaper and more effective than any justice system once the crimes has already been comitted.
I still recognize the fact that there are individuals that is too dangerous to other people to be allowed freedom but there are ways to handle them that doesn't make us just as monstrous.
-
You people are missing a few important points though:
1) You can't give the state the right to do something we as individuals doesn't have the right to do.
2) We can never be 100% sure that someone is guilty of any specific crime, and since a death sentence can't be undone once executed, it's not acceptable in a civilized nation under rule of law.
3) Penalties as a deterrent doesn't work since all criminals intend to not get caught and if they succeed, the penalty they COULD have been sentenced to doesn't mean shit.
4)Preventive and progressive social policies at an early stage to eliminate poverty and to promote equality and cooperation is both cheaper and more effective than any justice system once the crimes has already been comitted.
I still recognize the fact that there are individuals that is too dangerous to other people to be allowed freedom but there are ways to handle them that doesn't make us just as monstrous.
1. The Supreme Court is in place to make sure people's rights are upheld. They pass judgment on those that violate them. You violate them and you should be punished.
2. Going to war for no reason in a "civilized" country under rule of law is not acceptable, but places do it. And yes you can sometimes say someone was 100% guilty. If the burden of proof is shown I think it is acceptable.
3. Rehabilitation doesn't work either.
4. LOL! No comment.
Bottom line. You take a life, you deserve to have yours taken. Having the death penalty does not make you monstrous.
-
i am not agenst the death penalty for any it unmoral or any of that bs i just think that they are getting the easy way out i would rather watch the sob rot in prison for the rest of their life in a small cell by themself
Not a bad idea but why pay for it?
If the crime is bad enough I am for it.
It should not be a question of economics when it comes to taking a life.
I'm still for the death penalty in principle, but until the justice system can do a better job of establishing guilt, then I am against it in practice.
Yeah, Texas, I'm talkin' to you.
-
1. Sure you can. If the state had all the rights of the individual, it is termed "anarchy" - i.e., without the state having some sort of HIGHER AUTHORITY, there would be no state. I'm a hardcore libertarian and I know that.
2. I totally agree with you. I mean, if Hitler was caught, there always is that possibility he didn't kill 6 million Jews, Roma, and gypsies and break up millions of families. I mean, just like Charles Whitman might not have been guilty of shooting and killing 14 people, even though he was the single person in the clock tower holding a sniper rifle and left a suicide note taking all blame.
3. Did you ever see A Clockwork Orange? They cured him, alright.
4. Again, I totally agree. I mean, stealing - oops, taxing the people out of their own kroners or whatever it is over there so that some criminal can be in a nice bed in a nice cell with TV and plenty of room is sooooooooooo much cheaper than buying 5 two kroner bullets.
-
A bullet actually cost between 5 and 7 crowns (rifle calibers) but that's completely beside the point.
The ONLY people who MIGHT have any right to execute a death sentence would be the victim itself, or their closest relations, nobody else. And in that case it's vengeance, not punishment.
And no, there is NO way to be 100% sure since we can't read minds and most often weren't there.
Rehabilitation does work in most cases, provided the socio-economic circumstances that lead up to the crime has changed.
Sexual offenders are different, and so is serial killers, they must be kept locked away permanently due to the nature of their mental condition.
And myro, you obviously COMPLETELY missed what I said in point 4), read it again.
-
Rehabilitation does work in most cases, provided the socio-economic circumstances that lead up to the crime has changed.
Sexual offenders are different, and so is serial killers, they must be kept locked away permanently due to the nature of their mental condition.
But now, the question is: isn't it more "humane" to simply kill someone than to lock him up for all of the rest of his life? Besides, after all, the result is nearly the same when you want to get them away from other people but is much cheaper.
The ONLY people who MIGHT have any right to execute a death sentence would be the victim itself, or their closest relations, nobody else. And in that case it's vengeance, not punishment.
Doesn't the Sharia handle it like this? Well, we all (should) know how good it works today...
While you really got some good points in a few other posts, I strongly disagree with this one.
I, for one, support the death penalty; some people just deserve it. I mean, it's not like you get the death penalty for stealing chewing gums (ok, in China you might, but China's different), but for taking away someone's life (outside of a war, but as China war is different). And usually, there is not really much justification for doing so.
-
No, that's Singapore.
-
i am not agenst the death penalty for any it unmoral or any of that bs i just think that they are getting the easy way out i would rather watch the sob rot in prison for the rest of their life in a small cell by themself
Not a bad idea but why pay for it?
If the crime is bad enough I am for it.
It should not be a question of economics when it comes to taking a life.
but until the justice system can do a better job of establishing guilt, then I am against it in practice.
Yeah, Texas, I'm talkin' to you.
Agreed. On the test of constitutionality, it passes. Morally...I don't know. But seriously...if you're already going to kill them, what's the fuss about "cruel and unusual punishment"? This is going to sound crass, but wouldn't throwing them out of a plane work equally as well? I'm just saying that you shouldn't act like you want to be humane to someone when you're already killing them.
-
Agreed. On the test of constitutionality, it passes. Morally...I don't know. But seriously...if you're already going to kill them, what's the fuss about "cruel and unusual punishment"? This is going to sound crass, but wouldn't throwing them out of a plane work equally as well? I'm just saying that you shouldn't act like you want to be humane to someone when you're already killing them.
[/quote]
This is so true, it is after all the the death penalty, why be so PC on how it is done.
-
I'm not saying I disagree with you. But I think the idea is that "At least we're not stooping down to their level.". People generally believe that even if you're a horrible murderer, torture is wrong. But, I'm a moral relativist, so don't ask me about morals unless you want a long speech about how morals are entirely decided by the society.
-
You re-read number 4 yet myro? number 4 is supposed to PREVENT the crimes, meaning the efforts are made before a crime even occurs and is aimed at the cause of most common crimes wich is socio-economical inequality and a sense of not beeing able to influence or improve one's own life situation without breaking the law.
I have a hard time deciding if I'm completely against it or not. As for the humanistic part, yes it's questionable if life-long incarceration is more humane than execution, but on that I would like to say that it should be prison or mental institutions but that euthanasia for physically healthy prisoners/patients should be allowed for such peope that is too mentally dissabilitated that they are a danger to others if they are allowed to roam free.
-
No, I haven't re-read number four, because I don't argue with people who have broken the law in several countries.
-
You bet it is! :trout: :o
-
eh? who has broken the law in several countries?
-
eh? who has broken the law in several countries?
Maybe people who download MP3. The MAFIAA will come for all of us!
-
No, I haven't re-read number four, because I don't argue with people who have broken the law in several countries.
That sounds like a cheaper-than-dirt attempt at excusing ignorance...
-
3) Penalties as a deterrent doesn't work since all criminals intend to not get caught and if they succeed, the penalty they COULD have been sentenced to doesn't mean shit.
3. Rehabilitation doesn't work either.
I hope you two are aware of the absurd conclusion that you've reached in inadvertent tandem. We cannot deter criminals, we cannot rehabilitate them. In other words crime is completely uncontrollable and there's not a thing we can do about it. So why the Hell are we debating the death penalty then?
Both of these propositions, that we cannot deter criminals with the prospect of punishment and that we can't rehabilitate them are preposterous.
The chance of incurring a punishment is a potential risk which every potential criminal must consider even if they intend to avoid such punishment. The risk is there all the same and if is sufficient to outweigh what they stand to gain through crime then it can deter them. People don't invest money with the intent of losing it all either, but that doesn't mean a needless risky one won't deter them if they conclude the risk does not justify the potential gain. The same sort of cost benefit analysis applies here.
Likewise, that all criminals cannot be rehabilitated is also a silly proposition. Many people commit crimes not because they're inherently bastards but out of economic desperation which makes crime attractive and justifies its risk (as they have nothing to lose and everything to gain). Equip them with the tools to avoid that desperation and they won't repeat their crimes. If you need a real life example consider the Prisoner Entrepreneur Program in Texas. Whereas within the state's prison population at large more than 50% end back up in jail within three years of being released, graduates of the PEP have a recidivism rate of less than 5%. Part of the high rate of success is because it's very selective, but some people are indeed beyond rehabilitation and it wouldn't make a terrible amount of sense to waste effort on them and the program nonetheless demonstrates that some prisoners can be successfully rehabilitated in one way or another.
-
I didn't say criminals can't be deterred, only that the severity of the penalty isn't an effective deterrent, at least not on it's own accord. A police force that's almost always present and attentive witnesses likely to act on the other hand, is a very strong deterrent. Meaning the penalty isn't the deterrent, a high risk of getting caught is.
-
Ignorance:
ignorance (plural ignorances)
1. The condition of being uninformed or uneducated. Lacking knowledge or information.
I know what rehabilitation is, and I know how it works, so don't call me ignorant when you yourself are ignorant of what it means. Do you plan to rehabilitate kleptomaniacs? Serial killers (Which, by definition, requires the existance of Antisocial personality disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder))? You can't rehabilitate someone with a mental illness. You can give them medicine, but it never goes way. Crime will never go away, as Pragmia said, but I hold the belief that just because crime is always present doesn't mean that crime should go unpunished. If you take someone's life, you must take theirs. You can't put someone who kills for fun into a clinic and let them out a year later thinking they'll change. That's like giving a schizophrenic therapy but no medication, and expecting him to stop hearing voices. Or giving someone with severe OCD some aversion therapy and thinking that they're all better. Rehabilitation cannot help an inherent problem in the mind of the criminal. If someone who's "sane" (I use "sane" because in most non-psychotic cases, sanity is relative to the society) commits a crime for their own monetary gain, telling them they're wrong isn't going to stop them from doing it again. They know its wrong, just as someone with OCD knows their compulsions are irrational, or someone with Asperger's Syndrome knows their social skills are impaired. But they're doing it on their own free will (contrasting with OCD and AS), and rehabilitation can't affect free will, and unless you're using the fucking Ludovico technique, they'll just say they're better and turn around and do it again.
And even proposing that the Holocaust might not have happened is illegal in several countries.
-
The only thing you prooved with that rant Garth, is that you have a grave logic deficiency coupled with a frightening lack of interest in understanding anyone else's situation or life conditions and a grossly inflated ego when it comes to judging others...
Using your logic, if you happened to kill somone who walked out in front of your car while you were driving and fidgeting with the stereo, you should be killed in turn since you took a life. Right?
-
Actually, no. That's involuntary manslaughter. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_manslaughter#Involuntary_manslaughter) You know I meant murder, and if you want to get into a long argument about semantics with a native English speaker, be my guest.
And you really shouldn't be fiddling with the radio at 50 miles an hour anyway, but it's still just a suspended license as far as I'm concerned.
-
Meaning the penalty isn't the deterrent, a high risk of getting caught is.
But being caught is only a problem because of the penalty that you are then subject to.
-
Agreed. On the test of constitutionality, it passes. Morally...I don't know. But seriously...if you're already going to kill them, what's the fuss about "cruel and unusual punishment"? This is going to sound crass, but wouldn't throwing them out of a plane work equally as well? I'm just saying that you shouldn't act like you want to be humane to someone when you're already killing them.
This is so true, it is after all the the death penalty, why be so PC on how it is done.
I believe in most of the U.S. hanging is not allowed, but probably because it's not 100% effective and not because of any questions of humanity. Dunno...
-
I have been thinking, and there is another logical flaw in your reasoning Garth, No one has to do anything if somone kills someone else. Arguably, it could be stupid not to do something though. I agree with you as far as someone commiting a crime is waving parts or all of their human rights, BUT that doesn't mean anyone else (including society as an entity) get an 'abuse or kill at will' card for that person. It just means we don't have any moral obligations to do anything to help him/her in any kind of situation.
-
3) Penalties as a deterrent doesn't work since all criminals intend to not get caught and if they succeed, the penalty they COULD have been sentenced to doesn't mean shit.
3. Rehabilitation doesn't work either.
I hope you two are aware of the absurd conclusion that you've reached in inadvertent tandem. We cannot deter criminals, we cannot rehabilitate them. In other words crime is completely uncontrollable and there's not a thing we can do about it. So why the Hell are we debating the death penalty then?
Both of these propositions, that we cannot deter criminals with the prospect of punishment and that we can't rehabilitate them are preposterous.
The chance of incurring a punishment is a potential risk which every potential criminal must consider even if they intend to avoid such punishment. The risk is there all the same and if is sufficient to outweigh what they stand to gain through crime then it can deter them. People don't invest money with the intent of losing it all either, but that doesn't mean a needless risky one won't deter them if they conclude the risk does not justify the potential gain. The same sort of cost benefit analysis applies here.
Likewise, that all criminals cannot be rehabilitated is also a silly proposition. Many people commit crimes not because they're inherently bastards but out of economic desperation which makes crime attractive and justifies its risk (as they have nothing to lose and everything to gain). Equip them with the tools to avoid that desperation and they won't repeat their crimes. If you need a real life example consider the Prisoner Entrepreneur Program in Texas. Whereas within the state's prison population at large more than 50% end back up in jail within three years of being released, graduates of the PEP have a recidivism rate of less than 5%. Part of the high rate of success is because it's very selective, but some people are indeed beyond rehabilitation and it wouldn't make a terrible amount of sense to waste effort on them and the program nonetheless demonstrates that some prisoners can be successfully rehabilitated in one way or another.
Kill them all and let their gods sort them out. >_>
<_<
:P
-
How is that a logical flaw in MY argument? You're presenting your opinion. Logic is, by definition, absent of opinion. By saying that you think that, you're just saying that. Logic does not state that rehabilitation is better than punishment, because there's not enough evidence to stack up.
That would be like me saying that "Socialism is illogical, because I don't think it works." No, I don't THINK it works, but that doesn't make it illogical.
Oh, and:
The only thing you prooved with that rant Garth, is that you have a grave logic deficiency coupled with a frightening lack of interest in understanding anyone else's situation or life conditions and a grossly inflated ego when it comes to judging others...
No, actually, I'm defending my mentally ill bretheren. I know what it's like to lose control of your thoughts, and I KNOW my obsessions would not be solved by therapy, which is what rehabilitation is. I'm not holding them to the same standard as "sane" people; you're pulling the idea that I think that mentally ill people should be executed out of thin air. Quite the contrary. I'm saying they need to be punished, yes, but I was making the point that rehabilitation doesn't work on mentally ill criminals. You're assuming that because I think they should be punished, that I believe they're held to the same standard; that's contextomy.
-
I love watching a Swede and an American arguing over the morality of the death penalty. One place is dramatically different from the other, and sometimes what's good for the goose is no good at all for the gander.
I agree with Trey on the "cruel and unusual" issue. The state is putting people to death, and the death part should be the part we're focusing on, not whether the condemned experiences some pain for a few minutes before dying. It's certainly best to carry out a less painful than a more painful execution, but it shouldn't be the focus of the debate as it seems to be in the US today.
-
OH YEAH!
-
Show of hands: Should we sentence Space Raider to the death penalty? Here's one aye vote...
-
Aye.
-
Aye
-
Aye.
-
cruel and unusual” under the Eighth Amendment.
Now understands I why the appeal process in USA is lengthy.
-
On the topic: It's good, but not because it's a "just way of punishing criminals." Bullshit, let's be honest. Murder is fun!
-
On the topic: It's good, but not because it's a "just way of punishing criminals." Bullshit, let's be honest. Murder is fun!
Especially when you can get away with it legally.