The Death Penalty: Right or Wrong?

[Tolkien]

I'm beginning to think that we should abolish the death penalty in America. Our trials are more fair, and the crimes that lead to death sentences are probably more fair than most, no doubt. But the only countries ahead of us in executions last year were China (1,010--most likely thousands more), Iran (177), Pakistan (82), Iraq (65), and Sudan (65). We killed 53. That just bothers me. Those are all countries that execute without much regard for human rights. And it takes that kind of country to be ahead of us.

I still feel that some crimes can only logically be punished by death, but I'm not sure that has as much meaning to me anymore. I know that not every state has the death penalty, and that our motives may be a little more pure than other countries, but I don't like being in the same category as those other countries. Maybe we could go to a system of hard labor for punishment, or maybe build a prison complex for those convicted of capital offenses.

I will always be in favor of the death penalty for crimes against humanity, but I just feel we should take a hard look at the current system, as well as ways to prevent murder, and just like abortion, at least make the death penalty extremely rare. I know it's rare now, considering the number of violent deaths in the US, but I would like to see it eliminated all together, if plausible.

Just thinking out loud...:)

dont sell us short steve.. we also will execute the mentally challenged... beat that china!

...which is bad enough, but so far (as far as I know), we don't kill 'em just so we can harvest their organs to keep rich people alive, like they do in China. *shudder*

But that doesn't give me any comfort. :(

Dude, it's cool. America doesn't execute people... just Texas does.

Ha ha. Yeah I know, that's what I was thinking as I was writing that. But we kill our fair share in Indiana.

Well, this is just me... but out of 300 million people, it wouldn't suprise me to find 53 who really need to die.

Well, I won't argue that. I have no problem with killing in self defense, and certainly the world won't miss cold blooded killers, but should the government be in the business of killing it's citizens? I realize that there are many arguments, both pro and con. I'm interested to see what everyone thinks.

I'm for it if they are convicted murderers with DNA evidence.

Well, also keep in mind that the government is simply a reflection of it's people. Admittedly, different goverments can somewhat interfere with the process, slowing down the rate at which the government can "keep up" with the present feelings of it's people. However, a government should remain aloof to a certain extent, as it's people are often fickle. Ultimately, our government kills some of its citizens (a tiny 0.0002% of it's total population) because most of its citizens say it should.

Personally, I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with being aggressive in the punishment of those persons who commit acts requiring some retaliation. That being said, I don't think we should give the government license to kill at will.

In honor of Steve's discussion... Polls are private... Play nicely... :)

[iv3rdawG]

http://forums.comingsoon.net/showthread.php?t=47813

[Tolkien]

I knew we had it, I've share my more then cruel thoughts in it, lol. But I made this one in honor of my man Steve here. If no one wants to post, it's cool.

[Andrey83]

Wrong.

If just for one reason? Well you only need 1:

There has been, and will always be MISTAKES. You cant bring that innocent guy back from the dead. If you support the system, then that makes you guilty of murder, many, many, many times over.

Death penalty makes me downright angry.

[Tolkien]

I believe the; "To Each His/Her Own" teachings, so I'm a little offended that if I choose to support it, I'm being labeled as "Guilty of Murder". It's like saying that if a man is witnessed on camera murdering two people, and I support his death sentence, when his time comes, I'll be also labeled a murderer for supporting his death sentence. That's a little offending to say the least.

[Steve from Indy]

I noticed that in the original thread, some have said they're for it for reasons of justice. That used to be my argument as well. But these days that strikes me as a pretty poor reason. Justice is a relative term if you ask me. All we really need is to remove these people from the population. That's all that's required to keep our citizens safe. The death penalty doesn't really make us any safer.

We've had it for over 30 years now, and I don't think there's a big difference between the states that have it, and the states that don't. It ain't like death penalty states are utopias. And really, logically speaking, shouldn't taking a life only be done to protect another life? And shouldn't we infringe on human rights as little as possible?

Is it really proper to say that because someone forfeited their right to live in civilized society, that we must take their life in return? Why must we?

[FranklinTard]

you believe him to be worthy of the death penalty tolkien? incredible, this is interesting.... im reserving my vote for sake of a good argument.

[Andrey83]

I believe the; "To Each His/Her Own" teachings, so I'm a little offended that if I choose to support it, I'm being labeled as "Guilty of Murder".

To each his/her own doesnt always apply.

You live in a democracy, hence its you who, in theory, decide the cource of action. You want to kill people? Fine, but then accept that label as well.

[Tolkien]

Huh?

^^ Sorry, that was ment for FranklinTard, not you...

[Andrey83]

Huh?

^^ Sorry, that was ment for FranklinTard, not you...

I suspected so ;)

[Ramplate]

If the case is air tight with positive DNA aand all that - and if the circumstances of the crime are right - then I am for the Death Penalty.

Every person given a death sentence in this coutry is automatically given an appeal - and most of them go through several appeals before any such sentance is carried out.

I would almost go as far to say that executions should be as public as they were in the middle ages - but they were also more gruesome - that served as a deterant to anyone thinking about commiting a crime like that.
The term No Man's Land comes from the 14th century. The term was first used for a vast wasteland outside the north walls of London where criminals were executed. Often the rotting bodies of these hanged, impaled, and beheaded criminals were left in the open in full display, as a warning to potential lawbreakers.
But in this day and age - with all the sickos running around - and people saying that TV and video games are desensitizing us to such things - I don't know as that would work.

Further more, we as a civilized society are worried about ourselves - we seek to make executions less painful and to limit the suffering of the convicted - all to make ourselves feel better about putting someone to death -- They even use alcohol swabs when they give someone a lethal injection for crying out loud... god forbid we give the condemmed man an infection, right?

Yeah some people deserve killing - let them be the examples.

[Tolkien]

To each his/her own doesnt always apply.

You live in a democracy, hence its you who, in theory, decide the cource of action. You want to kill people? Fine, but then accept that label as well.

True, we live in a democracy, but it's not WE THE PEOPLE who are the ones killing the prisoners here. It is our justice system. It's not like we walk up to them and pop them in the head once or twice. So it's still a little offending for outsiders to see ALL of us who supports the death penalty as murderers. If I had a choice here, I'd execute any and all convicted multi-murderers for the sake of defending future victims from harm. I don't believe in executing just ANYONE now, so don't think that I'm for that kind of thing. But if you kill someone, and then kill someone else for kicks, who's to say that you will ever be able to change? Once you end a life willingly and without mercy, you change.

[Tolkien]

I'm not saying you're wrong for believing in labeling someone a murderer for supporting the death penalty, but I am saying that there are many dangerous people out there that I would support killing to insure the safety and survival of their future victims if they are not dealt with now. But to say both sides here, Tolkien himself wrote it right when Gandalf said; Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?

[Andrey83]

True, we live in a democracy, but it's not WE THE PEOPLE who are the ones killing the prisoners here. It is our justice system. It's not like we walk up to them and pop them in the head once or twice. So it's still a little offending for outsiders to see ALL of us who supports the death penalty as murderers. If I had a choice here, I'd execute any and all convicted multi-murderers for the sake of defending future victims from harm. I don't believe in executing just ANYONE now, so don't think that I'm for that kind of thing. But if you kill someone, and then kill someone else for kicks, who's to say that you will ever be able to change? Once you end a life willingly and without mercy, you change.

But you are, as you say, a supporter of the system.

The bolded part is called a mental illness, commonly reffered to as "cracy". You may have heard of it. Mental hospital is the place for that, not death, nor prison.

Further: A civilian commiting murder is in no way different then a "state" commiting murder. The act is the same, yet the pennalty isnt. One is applaued as the saviour of our "civilized" society, the other as the cancer. Come on...faulty logic and certainly nothing else but the quickest and easiest way out.


Ramplate, you go on and talk about civilized. But earlier wrote about how public these excecutions should be. YES, let us have people hanging on town square. How civilized....

[Andrey83]

I'm not saying you're wrong for believing in labeling someone a murderer for supporting the death penalty, but I am saying that there are many dangerous people out there that I would support killing to insure the safety and survival of their future victims if they are not dealt with now. But to say both sides here, Tolkien himself wrote it right when Gandalf said; Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo?

My point excactly. You cant be sure and thats the only reason you need. I personally have many reasons for not liking the system, but you just need 1. And thats the one.

[FranklinTard]

Huh?

^^ Sorry, that was ment for FranklinTard, not you...

you said the guy who killed two people on tape, that you would support the death penalty in their case. i would not. thought it was obvious

[Ramplate]

Ramplate, you go on and talk about civilized. But earlier wrote about how public these excecutions should be. YES, let us have people hanging on town square. How civilized....

I was just pointing out how the people in charge go to such great lengths to look at the "humane" ways to execute someone. I was actually stating that they are going a bit too far the other way - they are in fact causing someone to die for their crimes - if I were in charge - I would not be so conserned about making it a painless affair.

EDIT - and while I'm on the subject - I think this guy has the right idea of what a prison should be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Shouldn't be a country club - prisoners are in there to pay for their crimes - the only thing I would give extra is education for those who want to have a better start when they get out.

[prizm]

frankly, we dont execute enough people
limit the amount of appeals, line em up and shoot em

the death penalty is NOT a deterrent, it is a PUNISHMENT, a way to get rid of the dregs of society permanently, the rapists, the murderers, the child molesters

at least it should be expanded to include them all

sure there will be a few innocent people caught up in it, but its a small price to pay i say

[JBond]

sure there will be a few innocent people caught up in it, but its a small price to pay i say

Personally, I would have left this part out and hoped no one asked.

[Olorin]

Personally, I would have left this part out and hoped no one asked.

LOL

[Steve from Indy]

I was just pointing out how the people in charge go to such great lengths to look at the "humane" ways to execute someone. I was actually stating that they are going a bit too far the other way - they are in fact causing someone to die for their crimes - if I were in charge - I would not be so conserned about making it a painless affair.

EDIT - and while I'm on the subject - I think this guy has the right idea of what a prison should be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio
Shouldn't be a country club - prisoners are in there to pay for their crimes - the only thing I would give extra is education for those who want to have a better start when they get out.

Joe Arpaio is a sadistic mental case. And I was a corrections officer. Trust me, whether it's a jail or prison, it's not a country club. I hate that term. What does that have to do with the death penalty anyways?

[Steve from Indy]

frankly, we dont execute enough people
limit the amount of appeals, line em up and shoot em

the death penalty is NOT a deterrent, it is a PUNISHMENT, a way to get rid of the dregs of society permanently, the rapists, the murderers, the child molesters

at least it should be expanded to include them all

sure there will be a few innocent people caught up in it, but its a small price to pay i say

Okay, you scare me. So I guess if your innocent loved one, or yourself was executed, that would be fine with you?

[Steve from Indy]

Personally, I would have left this part out and hoped no one asked.

No, can't let that one pass. :eek:

[Ramplate]

Joe Arpaio is a sadistic mental case. And I was a corrections officer. Trust me, whether it's a jail or prison, it's not a country club. I hate that term. What does that have to do with the death penalty anyways?

It doesn't have much directly to do with the question - but I mentioned it as an aside to further explain my position on criminals.

I do know they sre not country clubs - but I also know that they shouldn't have "all the comforts of home" so to speak.
He has the riight Idea - make it efficient, and make it a place they do not want to go back to. No TV - No radios - No comforts - Just the basics (with educational oportunities).

[carnage4u]

Discussing this online is probably one of the most useless things that can be done.

People wont change their mind
people will get mad
and its just a dumb topic for a online forum, when people can say what they want with no real effect or responsibility.

politics and issues like this are banned on most forums simple because it causes bad blood and it never will account for anything.

its one of the original dead horse issues.

[Ramplate]

I'm not mad - people are entitled to their opinions :)

[Steve from Indy]

It doesn't have much directly to do with the question - but I mentioned it as an aside to further explain my position on criminals.

I do know they sre not country clubs - but I also know that they shouldn't have "all the comforts of home" so to speak.
He has the riight Idea - make it efficient, and make it a place they do not want to go back to. No TV - No radios - No comforts - Just the basics (with educational oportunities).

Well, I don't want to get off the subject, but one can argue that "comforts of home", (which again, is not really the reality in prison) along with education, are more likely to keep criminals from re-offending than are punitive measures. Prison is punishment. Besides I just want them locked away to keep me safe. What they do on the inside is not the most important thing to me.

[Steve from Indy]

I'm not mad - people are entitled to their opinions :)

Me either. Not in the least. :cool:

[Ramplate]

Well, I don't want to get off the subject, but one can argue that "comforts of home", (which again, is not really the reality in prison) along with education, are more likely to keep criminals from re-offending than are punitive measures. Prison is punishment. Besides I just want them locked away to keep me safe. What they do on the inside is not the most important thing to me.


Which is why I put those words in Quotations - Yes prison is punishment - having food, a place to sleep, a place to relieve oneself, a place to cleanse ones body - those are essentials - comforts like TV and so on are not.
Other than the stated above, I think they are only entitled to basic Health care, education, and counciling - so they may not tend to offend again.
:)

[Tolkien]

you said the guy who killed two people on tape, that you would support the death penalty in their case. i would not. thought it was obvious

Nooooooo, there is no guy like that, I was using that as an example. I didn't say that I would support the death penalty JUST BECAUSE a guy killed two people on camera. I was saying that if I were to support his death sentence, which of course would be in a real case with me finding out ALL the details as to why he did it, and what for. I'm not saying that I'd support a man's death just because he killed two people. I was using it as an example. I never said that I supported anyone for just killing two people, that's ubsurd!

I SAID WOULD... If I "would" support it... Gawd! :nono: :redface: :eek: :omg:

[Tolkien]

I'm not mad - people are entitled to their opinions :)

I'm not mad either... I should just post my examples better. lol.

[Steve from Indy]

Which is why I put those words in Quotations - Yes prison is punishment - having food, a place to sleep, a place to relieve oneself, a place to cleanse ones body - those are essentials - comforts like TV and so on are not.
Other than the stated above, I think they are only entitled to basic Health care, education, and counciling - so they may not tend to offend again.
:)

My mistake. :)

[Andrey83]

You know what? People in this thread needs to ask themselves a simple question (especially Prizm, who in my eyes is mental).

If your mother was executed (on town square for Ramplate, he needs some flawor), wrongfully so, innocent, but given the death penalty non the less. Would this change your view on the subject?

If the answer is yes, then you oppose death penalty

If the answer is no, then you are certanly not my kind of human being.

[Papa]

I don't think the death penalty should be allowed unless of course the person on death row killed someone. And in that case, they should be killed the way their victum was killed... or worse.

[Andrey83]

I don't think the death penalty should be allowed unless of course the person on death row killed someone. And in that case, they should be killed the way their victum was killed... or worse.

Yes, show society what not to do by doing it ourselves!

[Olorin]

Look, I'll settle this...

It's wrong for anyone to kill anyone ever! No reasons, no excuses... it's WRONG.

Now, if you don't mind... I need to go back to work. I have a formation in 45 minutes.

(if you don't get the irony, it's because you don't know that I'm a soldier in the army)

[prizm]

Okay, you scare me. So I guess if your innocent loved one, or yourself was executed, that would be fine with you?


would you rather take the chance of them potentially raping or murdering YOUR loved ones?

[prizm]

You know what? People in this thread needs to ask themselves a simple question (especially Prizm, who in my eyes is mental).

If your mother was executed (on town square for Ramplate, he needs some flawor), wrongfully so, innocent, but given the death penalty non the less. Would this change your view on the subject?

If the answer is yes, then you oppose death penalty

If the answer is no, then you are certanly not my kind of human being.

your mother was raped and murdered, the killer is released on parole and does it again, would you really want that on your conscience?

the only people who are mental are the ones who think its ok to let degenerates like that live

[Steve from Indy]

Look, I'll settle this...

It's wrong for anyone to kill anyone ever! No reasons, no excuses... it's WRONG.

Now, if you don't mind... I need to go back to work. I have a formation in 45 minutes.

(if you don't get the irony, it's because you don't know that I'm a soldier in the army)

I understand the need for a military. Again, I have no problem with self defense. Thx for serving, btw. :)

[Steve from Indy]

would you rather take the chance of them potentially raping or murdering YOUR loved ones?

I'm not sure I follow you. A murderer worthy of death row, would get life without parole. An innocent person is highly unlikely to become a rapist or murderer. At least a living innocent person has a chance of leaving prison if his name is cleared. A dead person is just simply dead.

But could you clarify your point a little more?

[Andrey83]

your mother was raped and murdered, the killer is released on parole and does it again, would you really want that on your conscience?

the only people who are mental are the ones who think its ok to let degenerates like that live

If that the case then the killer would get over 20 years in jail over here. When he has served his time they dont just let him out to go to town and get sexed up. Your view is narrow and ignorant. You arent very well informed either. Maybe some schooling would do you good. At least 1 year?

Your view on the justice system is screwed. Death is not the only solution. In fact, its not a solution.

Furthermore, on my concience? I wasnt the one doing the killing. Neither would it be me who did the execution if there was death penalty here. It has nothing to do with my concience.

Oh, and lastly. You didnt answer my question. You obviously couldnt.

[Ramplate]

:rolleyes: wow - talk about personal attacks

[Ewok Droppings]

If the case is air tight with positive DNA aand all that - and if the circumstances of the crime are right - then I am for the Death Penalty.

Every person given a death sentence in this coutry is automatically given an appeal - and most of them go through several appeals before any such sentance is carried out.


This pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

[Yuney]

Things used to be really black and white for me on this topic, but I now see there is more gray to it all. I used to be completely for the death penalty and really I think it came from my need to feel that people get what they deserve in life. If someone murdered someone I loved, I can understand the desire for equal payback for the crime.

Yet, I am beginning to believe that rotting in a jail cell and having to live with the guilt of what they did would be more of a punishment than an easy out - death. There are people that are wrongfully convicted, and that's what makes this issue so heated. I can see both sides of the issue and I really have no clear stance on it anymore.

The Green Mile is one of those movies that really opened my eyes to the horrors of the death penalty. And to see all those people cheering the deaths- it does seem a bit barbaric- even if it does stem from a heart that is hurting and dealing with a loss of a loved one. There is no clear-cut answer to it all, but it shouldn't have to become a bashing session just because you feel strongly one way or the other. To each their own opinion.. respect it and listen to the other side and you may be amazed at how your viewpoints can actually change.

[Steve from Indy]

^^Agreed.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about it.

Yes, but why are you in favor of it?

[Tolkien]

Even though I made this in honor of my man Steve, I kinda knew this would happen.

:(

[Ewok Droppings]

Yes, but why are you in favor of it?

Because I don't think some people deserve to live after they have killed others. Child murderers especially. I don't think it's murder like some anti-death penalty proponents claim. I think some people deserve to die and sitting and rotting in prison is worthless and a drain on society.

[Steve from Indy]

Even though I made this in honor of my man Steve, I kinda knew this would happen.

:(

No no, it's okay. This topic will naturally produce a little venom, not to mention hyperbole. But it's been pretty civil so far.

[Tolkien]

Somehow I keep waiting for Fighting American to show. Don't know why?

[Ewok Droppings]

Somehow I keep waiting for Fighting American to show. Don't know why?
Because this thread doesn't have anything to do with terrorists yet he won't show - once it does, then you'll see him. ;)

[Steve from Indy]

Because I don't think some people deserve to live after they have killed others. Child murderers especially. I don't think it's murder like some anti-death penalty proponents claim. I think some people deserve to die and sitting and rotting in prison is worthless and a drain on society.

I follow you. But if the idea is to remove them from society to keep them from killing again, what good does killing them do? I understand the feeling of the need for justice, but ultimately, what does that accomplish? Maybe some people deserve to die, but does that mean we must kill them? And I would never call someone a murderer that favors the death penalty. But you can't escape the fact that the state is killing someone that poses no immediate threat to anyone.

[Steve from Indy]

Somehow I keep waiting for Fighting American to show. Don't know why?

Quiet you! Once he pops in, I'll pop out. ;)

[Ewok Droppings]

I follow you. But if the idea is to remove them from society to keep them from killing again, what good does killing them do? I understand the feeling of the need for justice, but ultimately, what does that accomplish? Maybe some people deserve to die, but does that mean we must kill them? And I would never call someone a murderer that favors the death penalty. But you can't escape the fact that the state is killing someone that poses no immediate threat to anyone.

Well, you could use the same argument for keeping them in prison the rest of their life? What good does that do other than drain taxpayers money. Who's to say they don't pose an immediate threat? Prison guards get killed, these guys could possibly escape, things could happen. Some people should be removed entirely I think.

[Necross]

I have to say, I'm still in the very gray about this, I never have felt one way or the other. Both sides can make valid points and reading thru this thread, it still hasn't convinced me either way. I will say I'm honestly leaning towards that some people do deserve it, but even then I'm not leaning much. Theres so many variables when it comes down to it, on a financial level, emotional level, moral level. Etc.. I don't think there is any real clear cut answer.

[Tolkien]

I have to say, I'm still in the very gray about this, I never have felt one way or the other. Both sides can make valid points and reading thru this thread, it still hasn't convinced me either way. I will say I'm honestly leaning towards that some people do deserve it, but even then I'm not leaning much. Theres so many variables when it comes down to it, on a financial level, emotional level, moral level. Etc.. I don't think there is any real clear cut answer.

Coolest post in the thread so far, lol. You've managed to stay completely in the middle.

:)

[Ewok Droppings]

I have to say, I'm still in the very gray about this, I never have felt one way or the other. Both sides can make valid points and reading thru this thread, it still hasn't convinced me either way. I will say I'm honestly leaning towards that some people do deserve it, but even then I'm not leaning much. Theres so many variables when it comes down to it, on a financial level, emotional level, moral level. Etc.. I don't think there is any real clear cut answer.
I personally don't see a "moral" issue with it. I don't think it's morally wrong to execute someone that is undeniably wrong (DNA evidence, etc.).

[Olorin]

You'd better kill my ass before you send me to some max sec. prison for life.

[Tolkien]

I keep wanting to make my point, why I choose to support the death penalty, but it keeps coming back to my being labeled a murderer for supporting the death of someone (rightfully, not wrongfully) of willingly taking lives. I say lives because I think that if you kill someone, you may have the ability within you to change if given a chance. But if you reach a point where you choose to willingly take multiple lives (i.e. Serial, Child Murderer, Ect...) you have reached a point to where you are unable of change and therefore only pose a continuing threat to all of those lives around you. Thus, my support of your immediate death comes in. Life in Prison only puts a strain on society and forces tax paying citizens to pay for their time in prison while moral support groups fight to make jails and correctional facilities more user friendly. I don't see how people outside the U.S. can say that we're being brutal, since we've cut out every single style of execution to date and only left behind a needle in the arm. How is that brutal? You lay down, go to sleep, the end...

[Steve from Indy]

Um... can we stop using the "it cost too much to keep them in prison" argument, please? Just think about that statement.

[Ewok Droppings]

Um... can we stop using the "it cost too much to keep them in prison" argument, please? Just think about that statement.While it seems calloused, it's still an argument. I'm not saying that argument specifically is why I'm for it though. I'm for it because I think some people unfortunately are done with this life and should never be given a second chance because they are too dangerous.

[Papa]

Yes, show society what not to do by doing it ourselves!

Well, people who torcure others to death shouldn't just get the shot and a painless death. They deserve worse. I say let 'em rot in prison.

[Tolkien]

Um... can we stop using the "it cost too much to keep them in prison" argument, please? Just think about that statement.

While it's not a argument that we can make a main fuss about, it's still one more to add to the list of arguments to discuss. And don't get me wrong here, it's not like the "It Costs Too Much..." argument points to just ANY kind of prisoner. It's aimed directly at only the worst of the worst that populates our prisons today. Serial Murderers and Child Murderers for one. People like that who show no remorse, no care to change and no desire to ever become a useful member of society ever again. What's keeping them locked away in prison going to do? It'll leave our guards possible danger of being attacked, it'll leave other prisoners who has a chance of changing possible danger of attack. And in the end, one of the little arguments will also apply... It'll be a drain on our tax payers. Even though it's such a little argument to use, it's still an argument to be used here.

[bbf2]

It really depends on whose getting the death penalty. If I'm driving on the freeway, and some guy cuts me off and then starts going really slow, I'm all for giving him the Death Penalty. But if someone were to say "Hey, lets give the Death Penalty to that old lady and her box of cute puppies," I would say no.

[Tolkien]

Was that a joke? If so, it was really funny. lol. If not, it was crude!

[JBond]

Either way, he's done his job.

[Fighting American]

Innocent people die in war. That doesn't mean we don't do battle when necessary just because of that. The same goes for the death penalty. There is no perfect justice system. there is no perfect war. This is an evil planet

and the only reason it is not a deterent is because justice is not swift enough. Cats sit on D-Row for basically life, before they even see a needle or chair.

And yes....there is some irony to this that some cannot see past. How do you show society that we value life unless we exact the highest price (penalty) possible from the murderer? And what price can be higher than his own life? Anything less, devalues the life of the victim.

[bbf2]

Innocent people die in war. That doesn't mean we don't do battle when necessary just because of that. The same goes for the death penalty. There is no perfect justice system. there is no perfect war. This is an evil planet

and the only reason it is not a deterent is because justice is not swift enough. cats hits on D-Row for basically life, before they even see a needle or chair.

And yes....there is some irony to this that some cannot see past. How do you show society that we value life unless we exact the highest price (penalty) possible from the murderer? And what price can be higher than his own life? Anything less, devalues the life of the victim.

I agree. Kill 'em all and let God sort em out, that's my motto.

[FranklinTard]

sounds like someone else's motto....

[Ewok Droppings]

Innocent people die in war. That doesn't mean we don't do battle when necessary just because of that. The same goes for the death penalty. There is no perfect justice system. there is no perfect war. This is an evil planet

and the only reason it is not a deterent is because justice is not swift enough. Cats sit on D-Row for basically life, before they even see a needle or chair.

And yes....there is some irony to this that some cannot see past. How do you show society that we value life unless we exact the highest price (penalty) possible from the murderer? And what price can be higher than his own life? Anything less, devalues the life of the victim.

Surprisingly... that actually made some sense. At least the last part.

[Ramplate]

They took Andrei Chikatilo out and shot him in the back of the head once his trial was done in Russia - but there was little doubt he'd done what he did.
The reason why they sit on death row here is to make sure the system works more often than not and to clear those that have been wrongly convicted - that's the appeals process I think I heard that the average inmate sits on death row for @ 10 years

[iv3rdawG]

Just go by John McLane's rules when he tries to get his daughter:

"I'm gonna go kill this guy and get my daughter. Or go get my daughter and kill this guy. Or kill all of 'em!"

;)

[Tolkien]

Surprisingly... that actually made some sense. At least the last part.

In a way, it sorta did... Shocking! Is your chest hurting too Ewok?

[Fighting American]

Surprisingly... that actually made some sense. At least the last part.


:redface:

[Steve from Indy]

Innocent people die in war. That doesn't mean we don't do battle when necessary just because of that. The same goes for the death penalty. There is no perfect justice system. there is no perfect war. This is an evil planet

and the only reason it is not a deterent is because justice is not swift enough. Cats sit on D-Row for basically life, before they even see a needle or chair.

And yes....there is some irony to this that some cannot see past. How do you show society that we value life unless we exact the highest price (penalty) possible from the murderer? And what price can be higher than his own life? Anything less, devalues the life of the victim.

Your first paragraph makes no sense to me. Innocent people die in war, so it's okay to kill innocent people so that we make sure we kill the guilty ones? By your logic it would be okay to drop a bomb on the prison to kill those on death row. And hey, if we kill a few innocent people, oh well. See, someone sitting on death row isn't really in close proximity to someone that needs to have a bomb dropped on them to save the country. Sure the legal system is imperfect. Are you telling me that we should be okay with that?

You second paragraph is confusing as well. Do you really believe the type of person that would murder someone in cold blood is worried about the death penalty? And how would you make it quicker, do away with the appeals process?

As for your third paragraph, there was a time when I thought the same thing. But doesn't it show more value for human life by not killing someone? How does killing someone show value for the victim? By not killing someone, we aren't doing right by the victim? Must we lower ourselves to the level of the murderer by saying we will repay you in kind? Must we? Should we just do that for every crime? An eye for an eye?

By that logic, we should kill someone for everyone that's killed by violence. Is that what you want?

I really haven't seen any arguments for killing someone that's already locked up, that make sense. Saving money, protecting corrections officers, making a moral point, all seem pretty weak to me. Other than self defense, and crimes against humanity, I honestly don't see what good killing someone does.

But I'm not angry. I'm just a little sad.

[Steve from Indy]

They took Andrei Chikatilo out and shot him in the back of the head once his trial was done in Russia - but there was little doubt he'd done what he did.
The reason why they sit on death row here is to make sure the system works more often than not and to clear those that have been wrongly convicted - that's the appeals process I think I heard that the average inmate sits on death row for @ 10 years

I'm guessing it's just because the system is so backed up. If the government ever legalized drugs (if only some of them) I bet the courts would run much quicker.

And of course in some countries, guilt isn't always the first concern. :)

[Ewok Droppings]

I really haven't seen any arguments for killing someone that's already locked up, that make sense. Saving money, protecting corrections officers, making a moral point, all seem pretty weak to me. Other than self defense, and crimes against humanity, I honestly don't see what good killing someone does.

I just think you haven't seen anything that necessarily persuades you. I don't know that that's possible on a movie message board. There are lots of reasons why people believe in the death penalty. To me, my biggest reason is that when you wrong someone you must make restitution. If you steal, you pay it back. If you break something, you fix it. With murder, there is no way to pay that back. You took someone's life and you can't bring it back. There's no way to properly pay restitution - either to the victim specifically or more importantly to the family of the victim. The only thing you could really do sufficiently is to give your life in return. To me, the victim's family and the state (society) must be repayed, and how can you repay someone by sitting in a cell your whole life - or worse yet having the possibility of parole in some cases.

Anyways, I'm not trying to persuade you one way or the other. That's something I think you have to figure out on your own and not rely on a message board to convince you or come up with a decent enough argument.

[prizm]

If that the case then the killer would get over 20 years in jail over here. When he has served his time they dont just let him out to go to town and get sexed up. Your view is narrow and ignorant. You arent very well informed either. Maybe some schooling would do you good. At least 1 year?

Your view on the justice system is screwed. Death is not the only solution. In fact, its not a solution.

Furthermore, on my concience? I wasnt the one doing the killing. Neither would it be me who did the execution if there was death penalty here. It has nothing to do with my concience.

Oh, and lastly. You didnt answer my question. You obviously couldnt.

i didnt answer your question due to it being a non factor
the amount of innocent people executed is so small that it is insignificant

i don't suppose you ever heard of Kenneth Mcduff... he was a guy on death row for murder, when the death penalty was dropped for a few years, he was released on parole.... he then went out and committed more murders.... when the death penalty was reinstated and he was caught, he was finally executed

yes, people who murder have been paroled and have gone on to commit other violent crimes like rape or assault or murder, maybe not in the fantasy land you live in, but in the real world, yeah it has happened

if you want to say it is murder, maybe you should actually figure out what that word means before throwing out silly accusations

mur·der (mûr'dər) pronunciation
n.

1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

there, in case you are too ignorant to find the definition, note that it is not UNLAWFUL to carry out a sentence administered by a court of law

before calling someone uninformed, maybe you need to practice what you preach

or maybe you should try showing compassion to the victims instead of the murderers, in fact, you are a horrible human being if you honestly think the criminals deserve more sympathy than the victims

one other thing, getting rid of the trash IS a solution, they will never victimize anyone else ever again, and that is part of my point which you forget and your heart bleeds for the scumbags

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html

[prizm]

I'm not sure I follow you. A murderer worthy of death row, would get life without parole. An innocent person is highly unlikely to become a rapist or murderer. At least a living innocent person has a chance of leaving prison if his name is cleared. A dead person is just simply dead.

But could you clarify your point a little more?

an innocent person is highly unlikely to be put in prison for murder

[Steve from Indy]

I just think you haven't seen anything that necessarily persuades you. I don't know that that's possible on a movie message board. There are lots of reasons why people believe in the death penalty. To me, my biggest reason is that when you wrong someone you must make restitution. If you steal, you pay it back. If you break something, you fix it. With murder, there is no way to pay that back. You took someone's life and you can't bring it back. There's no way to properly pay restitution - either to the victim specifically or more importantly to the family of the victim. The only thing you could really do sufficiently is to give your life in return. To me, the victim's family and the state (society) must be repayed, and how can you repay someone by sitting in a cell your whole life - or worse yet having the possibility of parole in some cases.

Anyways, I'm not trying to persuade you one way or the other. That's something I think you have to figure out on your own and not rely on a message board to convince you or come up with a decent enough argument.

No no, I understand. That's exactly what I believed, not that long ago. And I held to that strongly. I no longer hold to that because I just can't justify taking life when it's not absolutely necessary. But logically, that argument has merit when you're talking about the punishment fitting the crime. So I understand where you're coming from.

[Steve from Indy]

an innocent person is highly unlikely to be put in prison for murder

Yes, but on the other hand, a dead innocent person is dead. And a traumatized innocent person is traumatized. How many is an acceptable number?

Also, to be honest, your argument about Kenneth McDuff doesn't really hold much weight. His release was the fault of the justice system. He could have easily remained in prison instead of being released. In other words, he murdered because he was let out of prison, not because the death penalty was overturned.

I'm sure we could easily find someone that lived an exemplary life after being released from death row, but I wouldn't use that as an argument to release murderers from prison.

[Tolkien]

an innocent person is highly unlikely to be put in prison for murder

But that's not to say that it doesn't happen.

Sometimes we even let guilty people go free.

[Ewok Droppings]

But that's not to say that it doesn't happen.

Sometimes we even let guilty people go free.

**cough** O.J. Simpson **cough**

[Tolkien]

LMMFAO, I wanted to say his name, but didn't know how people would respond, lol.

[Ewok Droppings]

LMMFAO, I wanted to say his name, but didn't know how people would respond, lol.

Never care how other people will respond - just say what you're thinking. ;)

[Tolkien]

I used to be the guy who did that... But it'd resort to multiple bannings over the years. lol.

[Ewok Droppings]

I used to be the guy who did that... But it'd resort to multiple bannings over the years. lol.

It's called couth - you don't have to go postal on people. ;)

[JBond]

LMMFAO, I wanted to say his name, but didn't know how people would respond, lol.

How would people respond? He did it, he admitted it.

[Fanible]

How would people respond? He did it, he admitted it.

Not to mention, even prior to his "admittance", most people believed (or rather was for sure) he did it anyway. It seems/seemed pretty unanimous.

[Steve from Indy]

How would people respond? He did it, he admitted it.

So did he actually admit it? I know his book was going to be titled If I Did It. But did he openly admit his guilt?

[Fanible]

So did he actually admit it? I know his book was going to be titled If I Did It. But did he openly admit his guilt?

Most people believe that was him admitting it, even if he didn't do it purposefully. He put out in full detail how he would/could commit the crime and get away with it. If I was really innocent, that would be the last thing on my mind, thinking about how I would have killed my wife and friend if I really wanted to, and then publish it for the world to see. That's pretty ****ed up.

[Ewok Droppings]

I think the Goldman's now own the rights to the book and they renamed it something like "Confessions of a Killer" or something like that.

[Steve from Indy]

Most people believe that was him admitting it, even if he didn't do it purposefully. He put out in full detail how he would/could commit the crime and get away with it. If I was really innocent, that would be the last thing on my mind, thinking about how I would have killed my wife and friend if I really wanted to, and then publish it for the world to see. That's pretty ****ed up.

Yeah, that was my impression-- he was making a tacit confession. I didn't think he had openly confessed. At any rate, no matter if he wanted to write the book for the money, or for his own sick pleasure, that is some sick stuff.

[Tolkien]

No... What's sick is that he's still walking free instead of behind bars. I have no idea how Cockring or whatever his name was did it, but that whole "If the glove don't fit, you must aquite" tactic was completely f**ked up and I didn't buy it for one second.

[Fighting American]

Your first paragraph makes no sense to me. Innocent people die in war, so it's okay to kill innocent people so that we make sure we kill the guilty ones? By your logic it would be okay to drop a bomb on the prison to kill those on death row. And hey, if we kill a few innocent people, oh well. See, someone sitting on death row isn't really in close proximity to someone that needs to have a bomb dropped on them to save the country. Sure the legal system is imperfect. Are you telling me that we should be okay with that?

You second paragraph is confusing as well. Do you really believe the type of person that would murder someone in cold blood is worried about the death penalty? And how would you make it quicker, do away with the appeals process?

As for your third paragraph, there was a time when I thought the same thing. But doesn't it show more value for human life by not killing someone? How does killing someone show value for the victim? By not killing someone, we aren't doing right by the victim? Must we lower ourselves to the level of the murderer by saying we will repay you in kind? Must we? Should we just do that for every crime? An eye for an eye?

By that logic, we should kill someone for everyone that's killed by violence. Is that what you want?

I really haven't seen any arguments for killing someone that's already locked up, that make sense. Saving money, protecting corrections officers, making a moral point, all seem pretty weak to me. Other than self defense, and crimes against humanity, I honestly don't see what good killing someone does.

But I'm not angry. I'm just a little sad.


Premeditated violent crime deserves the maximum price. There are degrees of violent crime.....Accidental death....etc....a life for a life isn't necessary......but a high price must still be paid.

Price is how we show value. In the case of crime, the penalty is the price. Cold-blooded murder deserves the highest price simply because the human life is the highest value. Again...therein lies the irony you can't wrap your head around. So be it.

Anything less devalues the life taken. It is then brought down to the level crime of tax evasion or something much less than murder.


But that's my two cents. You got your mind made up.

[Fighting American]

Melanie McGuire, the 34-year-old fertility clinic nurse convicted of killing her husband and stuffing his remains into suitcases, was sentenced to life in prison this morning.
"The depravity of this murder simply shocks the conscience of this courtroom," Superior Court Judge Frederick DeVesa said as he issued the sentence, calling the crime especially "heinous" and "cruel."

"The nature and the complexity and the scope of this criminal episode involved many, many overt actions committed over a three-week period spanning four different states, and reflected a willfullness and a malice that goes far beyond the elements of the crime of murder," the judge said.
McGuire has remained in custody since her April 23 conviction, after prosecutors said she drugged, shot and dismembered her husband, William T. McGuire, 39, in their Woodbridge townhouse on April 28, 2004, and then stuffed his remains into three matching suitcases before dumping them in the Chesapeake Bay.
"His sons were just babies, only 2 and 4 years old, when the sun rose on that April morning and their daddy was nowhere to be found," said Cindy Ligosh, William McGuire's elder sister, as she testified before the sentencing. The boys, she said, "were denied a chance to even say goodbye."
Laura Ligosh, William McGuire's niece, said she could no longer remember her uncle by "his infectious grin and the boyish mischief in his eyes."
"I see the pencil sketch rendered by the Virginia police department of a body that was pulled out of the water on three separate days," she said. "No name, no voice, just lifeless eyes set in a bloated, misshapen head."
Melanie McGuire sat handcuffed, wearing a green jail sweatshirt. She sobbed through much of this morning's hearing.
Allison LiCalsi, McGuire's best friend, spoke on her behalf, saying she is big-hearted woman who became a nurse to help others. During her time in jail, McGuire has helped a fellow inmate cope with heroin withdrawal, LiCalsi said.
McGuire winced and cried, sometimes bowing, as LiCalsi spoke. When Ligosh mentioned William and Melanie McGuire's young sons, the defendant screamed silently - her mouth wide open, her eyes shut tight.
Her attorney, Joseph Tacopina, said his client was wrongly convicted. He asked the judge to sentence McGuire to 30 years without parole.
"Melanie McGuire is innocent. We respect the jury's verdict, but we don't agree with it," he said. "She is always giving of herself, and she has gotten people through incredibly difficult times. Melanie McGuire continues to be that person today, even though she's in a place where she does not belong."
Assistant Attorney General Patricia Prezioso told the judge there is "ample reason" to give McGuire the maximum penalty.
"This defendant desecrated his body then she tried to desecrate his memory," she said. "(Melanie McGuire) continues to deny her part and displays a total and complete lack of remorse. She displays an arrogance as if she is entitled to be above the law. She should never, ever walk free again."

During the trial in Middlesex County, prosecutors said McGuire killed her husband so she could be with her lover Bradley Miller, a doctor at the Morristown fertility clinic where they both worked.

[Ewok Droppings]

I'd say that's a good example of someone who deserves the death penalty.

[Steve from Indy]

Premeditated violent crime deserves the maximum price. There are degrees of violent crime.....Accidental death....etc....a life for a life isn't necessary......but a high price must still be paid.

Price is how we show value. In the case of crime, the penalty is the price. Cold-blooded murder deserves the highest price simply because the human life is the highest value. Again...therein lies the irony you can't wrap your head around. So be it.

Anything less devalues the life taken. It is then brought down to the level crime of tax evasion or something much less than murder.


But that's my two cents. You got your mind made up.

That argument is not just ironic, it's retarded. We value life so much, that we'll kill to prove it? You know, irony doesn't make something right. This ain't war, where you kill to make the other side stop killing you. A death row inmate, or person serving a life sentence is no longer a threat.

And I really don't know how killing or not killing a criminal values or devalues the victim. That argument would make sense if we killed everyone that killed another person, no matter what the cause. Anything less devalues the victim.

But that's not really your point, is it? You just want vengeance and your pound of flesh, don't you? If you're so concerned about your fellow man, do something to make their lives better.

[Steve from Indy]

I'd say that's a good example of someone who deserves the death penalty.

I agree. If I was still pro death penalty, I'd say she should be first in line.

[FunBobPants]

when are we gonna get the "Allow it in Some Cases" option on the poll, I'm not voting 'till we get that! :mad:

[JBond]

when are we gonna get the "Allow it in Some Cases" option on the poll, I'm not voting 'till we get that! :mad:

You're looking for the "Yes" button. Do you think everyone who voted for that meant "death for everyone"?

[Fighting American]

That argument is not just ironic, it's retarded. We value life so much, that we'll kill to prove it? You know, irony doesn't make something right. This ain't war, where you kill to make the other side stop killing you. A death row inmate, or person serving a life sentence is no longer a threat.

And I really don't know how killing or not killing a criminal values or devalues the victim. That argument would make sense if we killed everyone that killed another person, no matter what the cause. Anything less devalues the victim.

But that's not really your point, is it? You just want vengeance and your pound of flesh, don't you? If you're so concerned about your fellow man, do something to make their lives better.

So much for trying to have a civil discussion. I could have easily called yours the same.

As I said you can't get it and I'm not trying to convince you. Peace. :)

[Fighting American]

I just think you haven't seen anything that necessarily persuades you. I don't know that that's possible on a movie message board. There are lots of reasons why people believe in the death penalty. To me, my biggest reason is that when you wrong someone you must make restitution. If you steal, you pay it back. If you break something, you fix it. With murder, there is no way to pay that back. You took someone's life and you can't bring it back. There's no way to properly pay restitution - either to the victim specifically or more importantly to the family of the victim. The only thing you could really do sufficiently is to give your life in return. To me, the victim's family and the state (society) must be repayed, and how can you repay someone by sitting in a cell your whole life - or worse yet having the possibility of parole in some cases.

Anyways, I'm not trying to persuade you one way or the other. That's something I think you have to figure out on your own and not rely on a message board to convince you or come up with a decent enough argument.


Steve is one of those individuals that has have an "experience" to be convinced. And that is unfortunate.

[Steve from Indy]

So much for trying to have a civil discussion. I could have easily called yours the same.

As I said you can't get it and I'm not trying to convince you. Peace. :)

Okay, it's nonsensical.

And of course I get it. I fully understand your point.

[Steve from Indy]

Steve is one of those individuals that has have an "experience" to be convinced. And that is unfortunate.

How do you know I don't have "experience"? Not everyone seeks revenge.

[Fighting American]

How do you know I don't have "experience"? Not everyone seeks revenge.

Justice.

[MrT]

Justice.

If this were a TV show, that'd be the most dramatic moment of the episode.

[Ewok Droppings]

How do you know I don't have "experience"? Not everyone seeks revenge.

There's a huge difference between revenge and justice. I'm sorry Steve, but your problem with this always has been that you want to wrap it all up in a nice little package of one argument that makes sense to you to convince you one way or the other. It's just not that simple of a subject that you can do that I don't think.

[Ewok Droppings]

You're looking for the "Yes" button. Do you think everyone who voted for that meant "death for everyone"?

It doesn't mean that? **looks through thread tools to change his vote** ;)

[FranklinTard]

i have to say, abolish it?? no, we are not above killing multiple persons. some people just deserve death. and if there is an after life, so be it, enjoy. but you mess up in this society, you are no longer a citizen, you are a prisoner. your rights went out the window when you committed the unspeakable crime (im assuming we aren't killing people for having weed or evading taxes...). cant do the time, dont do the crime. however the death penalty is a slippery slope, start killing people for this.. why not for that?

[Steve from Indy]

There's a huge difference between revenge and justice. I'm sorry Steve, but your problem with this always has been that you want to wrap it all up in a nice little package of one argument that makes sense to you to convince you one way or the other. It's just not that simple of a subject that you can do that I don't think.

You're right. And revenge and justice can have different meanings for people. You're probably right about me trying to simplify things. Even though I feel my argument is sound, I understand how some feel that the punishment must fit the crime. That's a sound argument. It's something I can no longer endorse, but I can accept that belief in others.

[Ewok Droppings]

You're right. And revenge and justice can have different meanings for people. You're probably right about me trying to simplify things. Even though I feel my argument is sound, I understand how some feel that the punishment must fit the crime. That's a sound argument. It's something I can no longer endorse, but I can accept that belief in others.

And what's your reasoning in not being able to endorse it anymore?

[Steve from Indy]

And what's your reasoning in not being able to endorse it anymore?

It just occurred to me that I was overlooking the fact that I was saying it was okay to kill a defenseless (though admittedly reprehensible) human being. Even after I disposed of my childish belief in a god, it took me some time before I realized where my underlying support for the death penalty came from. It came from the fact that it was right in the eyes of God and the Bible. I was using that as an argument so that I could justify my thirst for revenge.

When you believe that God says it's right, any contrary argument is not going to matter. My argument of the 'crime fitting the punishment' was just my attempt at injecting a little reason into my belief. But I was still basing it on some "divine" right that humans have for killing others. When you strip away the religious context, it becomes clear what the right thing is. Despite the fact that I detest murderers, and the acts they commit, in my opinion, killing someone who is no longer a threat, is just wrong. I don't need a god to know that.

That doesn't mean I have a problem with killing in self defense, or even a family member taking revenge in the heat of the moment. But killing when it's not necessary, is just wrong. As wrong as anything can be. That's why I detest abortion. But like I said, I still understand someone who can accept the 'crime fitting the punishment' argument. But I would caution them to examine why they believe that.

But to distill it down to one sentence, I'll state my reason like this. No matter what the argument, and no matter how right it seems, it's still killing a defenseless human being.

[Fighting American]

It just occurred to me that I was overlooking the fact that I was saying it was okay to kill a defenseless (though admittedly reprehensible) human being. Even after I disposed of my childish belief in a god, it took me some time before I realized where my underlying support for the death penalty came from. It came from the fact that it was right in the eyes of God and the Bible. I was using that as an argument so that I could justify my thirst for revenge.

When you believe that God says it's right, any contrary argument is not going to matter. My argument of the 'crime fitting the punishment' was just my attempt at injecting a little reason into my belief. But I was still basing it on some "divine" right that humans have for killing others. When you strip away the religious context, it becomes clear what the right thing is. Despite the fact that I detest murderers, and the acts they commit, in my opinion, killing someone who is no longer a threat, is just wrong. I don't need a god to know that.

That doesn't mean I have a problem with killing in self defense, or even a family member taking revenge in the heat of the moment. But killing when it's not necessary, is just wrong. As wrong as anything can be. That's why I detest abortion. But like I said, I still understand someone who can accept the 'crime fitting the punishment' argument. But I would caution them to examine why they believe that.

But to distill it down to one sentence, I'll state my reason like this. No matter what the argument, and no matter how right it seems, it's still killing a defenseless human being.


I guess the religious spin works for you.....take God out and now you see better than He does.

There are Atheists who support the death penalty.....and not for revenge. So not everybody supports this from a religious view. We all have a sense of "justice" in us. We all know when something just isn't right. Some have that sense stronger than others. But we all have it.

[Tolkien]

I'm Catholic, but I've never used my faith to support any issue with politics or matters of justice. I have a strong faith, yes. But I don't go around supporting the death penalty because god tells me to. It's silly to even think about. And I don't go around supporting it because I want to see just every murderer executed. That's also idiotic. I support it only for the worst of the worst who cannot be helped, who will never change, and who will just sit in a cell that we all help pay for around guards who could someday die by their hands. Not to mention the fact that people break out of prisons each and every single day across the globe. How are we to feel satisfied about locking them up if they just escape and murder again?

[Steve from Indy]

I guess the religious spin works for you.....take God out and now you see better than He does.

There are Atheists who support the death penalty.....and not for revenge. So not everybody supports this from a religious view. We all have a sense of "justice" in us. We all know when something just isn't right. Some have that sense stronger than others. But we all have it.

Well, it's not "spin" in my case. It's the truth. I didn't technically take God out, since I don't believe such a being exists.

But you're right, some atheists do support the death penalty, I have no doubt. I didn't say the argument is not valid, I just ask that people examine why they believe it. I'm sure lots of people support that position because they truly feel it's the proper thing, and not because they are using religion to justify killing. But in my case, that's exactly what I was doing.

And as far as a 'sense of justice' goes, mine is just as strong as yours, or anyone else. It just leads me to a different conclusion.

[Steve from Indy]

I'm Catholic, but I've never used my faith to support any issue with politics or matters of justice. I have a strong faith, yes. But I don't go around supporting the death penalty because god tells me to. It's silly to even think about. And I don't go around supporting it because I want to see just every murderer executed. That's also idiotic. I support it only for the worst of the worst who cannot be helped, who will never change, and who will just sit in a cell that we all help pay for around guards who could someday die by their hands. Not to mention the fact that people break out of prisons each and every single day across the globe. How are we to feel satisfied about locking them up if they just escape and murder again?

Tolkien, my brother. Not everyone that escapes from prison and kills someone is on death row, or even a murderer. If we killed criminals because of what they might do, we'd be doing a lot of killing. I'm guessing the number of murderers that escape every year and kill is minuscule. And that would be an even lower number for those that were worthy of death row. The same goes for murdered corrections officers. Corrections officers face death every day-- that's a risk they accept.

And again, killing because it saves money-- not something I understand.

No offense, but those arguments are pretty weak. I could easily say a murderer might turn his life around and become a paragon of virtue. But neither your reason or mine is good enough to be pro or con, because the 'what if?' argument is an endless, circular argument that leads to nowhere. Even my fear of executing innocent people is not a reason to end capital punishment. It's a reason to make sure it never happens, but that's all.

Anyway, aren't you required to be against capital punishment as a Catholic? http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/konfus/c010.gif

[Tolkien]

As a child I was against it. But like you I changed as I grew. I didn't in any way give up my faith or my beliefs, but I did change the way I viewed a lot of matters regarding life, state and politics. I still go to church every Sunday. I still pray sometimes, even though it's not as much as before. I've just come to realize that there are many things in our world that should not be judged by the religious beliefs of just one person.

With sooooo many people believing in different faiths today, it would be ignorant of me to say that I can't agree with them because my god says so, or I can't talk to you because you follow a different god then me. I encourage people to have faith, and to believe. But if they choose not to, who am I do see them differently? And I don't buy into the belief that we all came from just two people.

I lean towards being a catholic because I believe in a lot of what I've learned from the faith. And I also disagree with some of the things I've learned from it too. For me, it's all about having the freedom to choose what I want to believe in and what I don't want to believe in. I want to believe that life here began out there, and I do. There is too much life in the universe to NOT believe in it.

But I have also seen with my own two eyes, too much on this earth to NOT believe that there is a higher power here. And though that higher power is ignorant to sit back and do nothing, I still believe that it exists. People keep telling me that I have selective beliefs, but I'm okay with them saying that. It's the freedom we all have to choose what we want. Which finally (Sorry for the long reply) brings me back to the death penalty.

Do I support it? Yes. Do I enjoy supporting the death of an unarmed person? No. Do I enjoy supporting the death of any kind of human being? No. So why support the death penalty? I support it because I feel that though it may sound ignorant, some people deserve it. Some people who has gone too far, deserve to be executed. And I am agreeing with everyone ahead of time that this does some selfish and ignorant, but I believe it. And though I have personally never ever come across a human being that I thought deserved to die, I still believe that there are those out there that do. Even though I may never meet them.

The Death Penalty will always be apart of our natural need to remove the negative things from society, because it has been that way for tens of thousands of years, through thousands of generations. And over the recent years, we've even go as far as to lessen the pain and suffering by using needles instead of hangropes and electric-chairs. We ended gas-chambers, firing squads and burnings.

Again... I am sorry ahead of time about the long ignorant post. :(

[Ewok Droppings]

It just occurred to me that I was overlooking the fact that I was saying it was okay to kill a defenseless (though admittedly reprehensible) human being. Even after I disposed of my childish belief in a god, it took me some time before I realized where my underlying support for the death penalty came from. It came from the fact that it was right in the eyes of God and the Bible. I was using that as an argument so that I could justify my thirst for revenge.

When you believe that God says it's right, any contrary argument is not going to matter. My argument of the 'crime fitting the punishment' was just my attempt at injecting a little reason into my belief. But I was still basing it on some "divine" right that humans have for killing others. When you strip away the religious context, it becomes clear what the right thing is. Despite the fact that I detest murderers, and the acts they commit, in my opinion, killing someone who is no longer a threat, is just wrong. I don't need a god to know that.

That doesn't mean I have a problem with killing in self defense, or even a family member taking revenge in the heat of the moment. But killing when it's not necessary, is just wrong. As wrong as anything can be. That's why I detest abortion. But like I said, I still understand someone who can accept the 'crime fitting the punishment' argument. But I would caution them to examine why they believe that.

But to distill it down to one sentence, I'll state my reason like this. No matter what the argument, and no matter how right it seems, it's still killing a defenseless human being.

OK, there are several problems with this logic.

1) Beliefs in God are not childish, and having a belief in God does not necessarily make you pro-death penalty or anti-death penalty.

2) The argument of "killing a defenseless person" is total crap. They have tons of defenses with the legal system. It's not the defense you might find in something like the animal kingdom, but I would argue that it's actually a much better defense than that. They don't sit on death row for many many years for no reason.

3) Stripping away the religious part of the argument does not make some "clear right answer". People of all religious and non-religious backgrounds have executed others since the beginning of man. If you don't think so, look at communist Russia and how many people were executed without any religion one way or the other. This argument simply makes no sense to me.

4) Saying that these guys are not a threat anymore is wrong also. Most of them will always be a threat - maybe to prison guards, maybe they escape back into the community, maybe to other prisoners, etc. Saying they aren't a threat because they are currently locked up is not accurate.

5) Your statement of killing when not necessary is wrong is your opinion, and simply isn't shared by many. That's like saying to me that you don't need to lock someone up for armed robbery when they used a toy gun because they are sorry. It's "unnecessary". Sorry - that logic doesn't fly with me either. Who's to decide if it's necessary or not? Justice should decide that, not you.

And to wrap up the argument by saying your last statement is false because it's not "killing a defenseless human being", it's exacting justice on someone who has repeatedly defended themselves in a court of law and lost.

[Fighting American]

OK, there are several problems with this logic.

1) Beliefs in God are not childish, and having a belief in God does not necessarily make you pro-death penalty or anti-death penalty.

2) The argument of "killing a defenseless person" is total crap. They have tons of defenses with the legal system. It's not the defense you might find in something like the animal kingdom, but I would argue that it's actually a much better defense than that. They don't sit on death row for many many years for no reason.

3) Stripping away the religious part of the argument does not make some "clear right answer". People of all religious and non-religious backgrounds have executed others since the beginning of man. If you don't think so, look at communist Russia and how many people were executed without any religion one way or the other. This argument simply makes no sense to me.

4) Saying that these guys are not a threat anymore is wrong also. Most of them will always be a threat - maybe to prison guards, maybe they escape back into the community, maybe to other prisoners, etc. Saying they aren't a threat because they are currently locked up is not accurate.

5) Your statement of killing when not necessary is wrong is your opinion, and simply isn't shared by many. That's like saying to me that you don't need to lock someone up for armed robbery when they used a toy gun because they are sorry. It's "unnecessary". Sorry - that logic doesn't fly with me either. Who's to decide if it's necessary or not? Justice should decide that, not you.

And to wrap up the argument by saying your last statement is false because it's not "killing a defenseless human being", it's exacting justice on someone who has repeatedly defended themselves in a court of law and lost.

DANG!!
http://school.discovery.com/clipart/images/a-trophy.gif

[Fighting American]

West Palm Beach - On June 18th, a group of about 10 masked intruders forced their way into a woman's apartment. These male intruders proceeded to rape the woman, then forced her 12 year old son to rape his own mother.


About 9 p.m., a man knocked on the apartment door saying he needed help as he had a flat tire. Once the woman and her son went outside, they were ambushed at gun point and made to return to the apartment. Back inside, they were "beaten and sexually assaulted". The police report states that this group raped, sodomized and beat the woman. Finally, at gun point, they forced the son to rape his own mother as the gang watched.

Then, the boy was also beaten, and a number of household cleaning chemicals were poured into his eyes. The victims did not receive life-threatening injuries, and have since been sent home from the hospital. Their identities have not been released.

Since then, DNA evidence found in a condom left at the victim's home, linked Avion Lawson, 14, to the crime. Another teen has also been arrested: Nathan Walker, 16, because they found his hand print at the scene. More arrests are expected, despite the fact that neither Lawson or Walker are cooperating with the police.

All that was taken otherwise was a few hundred dollars and some jewelry.

Walker's mother had this to say about her son,
"My son has a good heart. I can't believe my son would do something like this. I don't teach my son violence so I don't understand."


The victims are now going through a county counseling service.

I don't understand what the fascination is to do something like this. There was no need to have raped this woman or force her son to rape his mother...period.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/204185/Son_Forced_to_Rape_His_Mother

[JBond]

Is there really a need for you to post it, either?

[Steve from Indy]

OK, there are several problems with this logic.

1) Beliefs in God are not childish, and having a belief in God does not necessarily make you pro-death penalty or anti-death penalty.

2) The argument of "killing a defenseless person" is total crap. They have tons of defenses with the legal system. It's not the defense you might find in something like the animal kingdom, but I would argue that it's actually a much better defense than that. They don't sit on death row for many many years for no reason.

3) Stripping away the religious part of the argument does not make some "clear right answer". People of all religious and non-religious backgrounds have executed others since the beginning of man. If you don't think so, look at communist Russia and how many people were executed without any religion one way or the other. This argument simply makes no sense to me.

4) Saying that these guys are not a threat anymore is wrong also. Most of them will always be a threat - maybe to prison guards, maybe they escape back into the community, maybe to other prisoners, etc. Saying they aren't a threat because they are currently locked up is not accurate.

5) Your statement of killing when not necessary is wrong is your opinion, and simply isn't shared by many. That's like saying to me that you don't need to lock someone up for armed robbery when they used a toy gun because they are sorry. It's "unnecessary". Sorry - that logic doesn't fly with me either. Who's to decide if it's necessary or not? Justice should decide that, not you.

And to wrap up the argument by saying your last statement is false because it's not "killing a defenseless human being", it's exacting justice on someone who has repeatedly defended themselves in a court of law and lost.

1) I was talking about myself. My belief in "God" was childish. I think it's downright silly to believe in a god, and will gladly mock religion if someone dares me to. But if that's what gets you through the day, more power to you. And of course belief in god doesn't automatically make you pro death. However, a fundamentalist that takes the bible or koran literally, will almost certainly be pro death. But yeah, I would never say all believers in a god or gods, or all religious people, are pro death. That would be stupid.

2) They're in handcuffs and shackles, and are surrounded by armed guards. That's not defenseless?

3) Again, talking about myself. And I never said only religious governments execute people. But again, talking about myself.

4) A lot of offenders are threats to society. Should we kill them as well?

5) I really don't care if people agree with me. The rest of that paragraph was gibberish to me.

And lastly, what part of defenseless am I not getting across to you? You do know that I'm talking about being physically defenseless don't you? I'm not talking about legal procedures.

[Ewok Droppings]

1) I was talking about myself. My belief in "God" was childish. I think it's downright silly to believe in a god, and will gladly mock religion if someone dares me to. But if that's what gets you through the day, more power to you. And of course belief in god doesn't automatically make you pro death. However, a fundamentalist that takes the bible or koran literally, will almost certainly be pro death. But yeah, I would never say all believers in a god or gods, or all religious people, are pro death. That would be stupid.

2) They're in handcuffs and shackles, and are surrounded by armed guards. That's not defenseless?

3) Again, talking about myself. And I never said only religious governments execute people. But again, talking about myself.

4) A lot of offenders are threats to society. Should we kill them as well?

5) I really don't care if people agree with me. The rest of that paragraph was gibberish to me.

And lastly, what part of defenseless am I not getting across to you? You do know that I'm talking about being physically defenseless don't you? I'm not talking about legal procedures.
Defenseless is not what these guys are. I'm sorry, but that's just a silly argument on multiple levels. They aren't defenseless when they get caught and they aren't defenseless throughout the entire proceedings. What is so difficult to understand about that?

1) You apparently know nothing about religion, so don't ever call people who believe in God childish. That's being a 2 year old, and any time you want to debate religion Steve I would be happy to.

2) Again - they are not defenseless. This is probably one of the weakest arguments against the death penalty that I have ever heard in my life.

3) OK

4) That's taking out of context the argument to try to pander a stupid point. You know better than that Steve.

5) Your entire arguments seem like gibberish to me, so what's your point? You discredit justice like it's nothing because you have some crazy weird logic that you've concocted. Please don't ever run for a judge position.

[Steve from Indy]

I didn't know I was being a whiny little kid. I don't feel that way. And I understand religion all too well. But I'm not sure I care to debate you on it. But If you start a thread, I'll probably chime in. But I can be brutal. So buyer beware, so to speak. :)

And I really have only one argument: Killing is wrong, and should be avoided if at all possible. That's my argument, and it seems solid to me. I'm sorry if you thought I was attacking you, I didn't mean to come across that way.

[Ewok Droppings]

Fair enough - good to keep it civil. :) I just don't share the sentiment that "killing is wrong" in some cases. So, we can agree to disagree.

[Steve from Indy]

Cool beans. :cool:

Btw, did you forget a comma or hyphen after "killing is wrong"? Jesus, I hope so! :funny:

[Ewok Droppings]

Sure ;)

[Necross]

I personally don't see a "moral" issue with it. I don't think it's morally wrong to execute someone that is undeniably wrong (DNA evidence, etc.).

See thats the thing, in a case like that I would prolly accept the death penalty. The only problem I have with it is, that person in such a circumstance is defenselss, evil but still. Taking them to the chair then pulling the switch or lethal injection. Its not like killing someone in self defense. I know, its not a STRONG arguement, I don't even support it fully. But thats how some people see it is all. Some people just never believe its ok to kill a human being.

And its mixed on all levels. Religious and non people take both sides with perfectly valid points. I'm pretty sure the bible says it both ways at some point or another. Regradless of who doesn't agree with them, theres no denying the logic on either side. Unlike some issues where there is pretty much a "wrong" side, where some things don't make as much sense. This isn't. I've continued reading this thread. Not posting cause I can't add much and I still really haven't. But its like, no matter how strongly someone feels, they can never seem to lessen the opposite arguement imho.

Didn't mean this as a target at you either Ewok, you just happen to respond to what I said.

[Ewok Droppings]

I don't take offense to it - no worries.

My big problem with the idea of killing "defenseless" people is that they aren't defenseless. They go through extensive defense procedures to give them every possible opportunity to prove their worth. Maybe we don't give them a pistol and ask them to fight it out, but they have plenty of defense and as a matter of fact MANY people work in their defense. It's not an innocent and defenseless victim situation at all.

[Tolkien]

Wow... This thread is coming along rather nicely/harshly. ;)

Choose the word you want. ^^^

[Necross]

I don't take offense to it - no worries.

My big problem with the idea of killing "defenseless" people is that they aren't defenseless. They go through extensive defense procedures to give them every possible opportunity to prove their worth. Maybe we don't give them a pistol and ask them to fight it out, but they have plenty of defense and as a matter of fact MANY people work in their defense. It's not an innocent and defenseless victim situation at all.


Well its just, at the moment of death, when they are strapped into the chair or onto the table or whatever. i don't see it as right is all. I personally couldn't kill someone who was just lying their strapped down, when I know they are no threat at that immediate time. Killing in self defense or something like that I'd do. But I could never just off someone, prolly no matter what or who they were if it was a situation involving me just hitting a switch and ending a life. Again, still not saying I'm for or against the death penalty, I guess I'm just being a wuss and saying I couldn't do it. :P

The Penn and Teller episode of Bull**** involving the death penalty is pretty good. Most of the time they take the opposition on their show and just destroy em, but they don't on that one. And the arguements against the death penalty are good. I'd say its what made me sway, I used to be for it, at least more so, til then.

I don't know lol. I actually would like to contribute good stuff, but I'm totally john kerry on this subject. Feel like I wasted a post.

[Ewok Droppings]

Well, just because someone is strapped down, or incapacitated at the moment does not mean they are not a danger. If taken from that gurney and put back into society, there is a decent chance they would repeat. They are still threats, they are just minimalized threats at that point in time. Nobody wants to execute anyone if they can possibly avoid it. The best solution would be for that person to never have committed the crime, but sometimes it's best to be rid of someone who would always otherwise be a threat or someone that justice might demand their life. It's not something that's pleasant, that's for sure, but sometimes I believe it's necessary.

[Andrey83]

I just don't share the sentiment that "killing is wrong" in some cases.

You do realize you basically just said "killing is always right"?

I reckon you didnt actually meen that, but still ;)

[Tolkien]

What is with you and always? He said in some cases, not always. You did the same thing with me when I said I'm for the death penalty in some cases, to which you then called me a murderer for supporting the death of an unarmed person. Or something to that sort. I have zero disrespect for you dude, but your logic is a bit over the top.

[Boiiinng]

There are much worse things than death. Why let someone get off easy for murder is what I've always asked. That's not punishment.

[Ewok Droppings]

There are much worse things than death. Why let someone get off easy for murder is what I've always asked. That's not punishment.

Wow - we agree???? **checks pulse**

[Tolkien]

Rare... Plain and simple. ;)

[Steve from Indy]

Well its just, at the moment of death, when they are strapped into the chair or onto the table or whatever. i don't see it as right is all. I personally couldn't kill someone who was just lying their strapped down, when I know they are no threat at that immediate time. Killing in self defense or something like that I'd do. But I could never just off someone, prolly no matter what or who they were if it was a situation involving me just hitting a switch and ending a life. Again, still not saying I'm for or against the death penalty, I guess I'm just being a wuss and saying I couldn't do it. :P

The Penn and Teller episode of Bull**** involving the death penalty is pretty good. Most of the time they take the opposition on their show and just destroy em, but they don't on that one. And the arguements against the death penalty are good. I'd say its what made me sway, I used to be for it, at least more so, til then.

I don't know lol. I actually would like to contribute good stuff, but I'm totally john kerry on this subject. Feel like I wasted a post.

I found the Penn and Teller video here. http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/27677/Penn_Teller_Bullsh_t_The_Death_Penalty.html

Wow, I thought my argument was strong. But their argument is even better. I like what that lady said about how if an innocent person is killed, than that person was murdered, because killing an innocent person in murder. And someone that supports the death penalty has become a murderer, and deserves to die because they have murdered an innocent person (or words to that effect). There's no logic that I'm aware of that can escape that paradox.

[Tolkien]

I'm trying my best to see their logic, but I just find it absurd that just because I support something someone else doesn't, that makes me a murderer. I know that there are going to be innocent people sent to die, that's just how our f**ked up justice system works today. But I am not going out there and openly supporting the death of innocent people. That's just sick. I'm supporting a legal process that will give the ultimate punishment to someone who may or may not be convicted to die. It's the same way with ignorant people who believes in god and calls non-believers ignorant sinners for not believing in their god too. Or non-believers who calls believers ignorant people just because they believe in a higher being, and you do not.

I just... I find it completely absurd to have people who are against the death penalty, openly call people who support it murderers. If it were in a different situation with a real life face to face conversation with another person, I would have called slander by now.

[Tolkien]

Oh, Steve... I wanted to point you to something...

You said that the use of "Tax Payers Money" is a lame way to support the death penalty, then look closely in the video. Everytime they show the large crowds outside of the prison, a lof of them are holding signs that says; "Don't use tax payers money to support the death penalty" or something to that matter.

Again... this is just apart of the debate. I'm being as civil as possible.

[DeadFlagBlues]

The problem with the death penalty is that it causes us to return to a very antiquated form of 'punishment'. I see the death penalty as almost a gross display of power. A power over the people that only the government can truly and fully possess. So this really begs the question whether or not the death penalty, is in fact, doing what we think its accomplishing. The death penalty is nothing more than a display of power over the individual as well as the society.

Historically, there was a time where individuals were forced out into the streets and publicly executed. Then came a time where it was a disgusting act (mostly because of criticisms by the public -- not based upon humanitarian intentions, either). So eventually they began to hide these inhumane acts from the public for the reasons mentioned above.

You must think also of the reasons for the death penalty. Is it justified, or ethical? Regardless of tax payer dollars which are irrelevant (which may seem relevant to many). The purpose of the discussion is to create a sound system of ethics that we can follow. Tax payer dollars are a problem -- do not misunderstand me. But then we're merely measuring a person's worth with our money. We murder another individual because they murdered (or caused some sort of harm to society) another individual. This doesn't seem to really solve any problems but it merely questions our ethical system. No matter how you would like to mess with semantics, its considered murder.

[Necross]

Yeah, there was a holocaust survivor on that Penn and Teller episode....I wish I could see it again or find it somewhere. She had very powerful arguements against the death penalty. (The show did have a powerful one for it as well), but I think hers got thru to me the most, I wish I could find a link of it somewhere. She went very indepth and it was hard to refute like anything she said.

[Andrey83]

What is with you and always? He said in some cases, not always. You did the same thing with me when I said I'm for the death penalty in some cases, to which you then called me a murderer for supporting the death of an unarmed person. Or something to that sort. I have zero disrespect for you dude, but your logic is a bit over the top.

Haha, it was a joke. And you better read my post and the one I quoted again if you didnt get that. Maybe your english is lacking seeing as you didnt comprehend what "in some cases" refered to in that sentance, I dont know. You kinda made a fool out of yourself now. Ewok understood, so not sure what your problem is. I even said in the same post that he didnt meen that. You got issues mate.

[Steve from Indy]

Oh, Steve... I wanted to point you to something...

You said that the use of "Tax Payers Money" is a lame way to support the death penalty, then look closely in the video. Everytime they show the large crowds outside of the prison, a lof of them are holding signs that says; "Don't use tax payers money to support the death penalty" or something to that matter.

Again... this is just apart of the debate. I'm being as civil as possible.

I don't recall saying any such thing. That's not my objection at all. I'm not even sure that some prisons don't use money that they earned through prison industry. But at any rate, I wouldn't expect them to not use taxpayer money-- that's pretty much all they have. It would be a pretty weak argument on my part to say that the death penalty is wrong because I'm forced to pay for it.

And I'm sorry, but if someone supports a system that knowingly kills innocent people, which is murder, then that makes them an accessory to murder-- which makes them only slightly less responsible. I don't mean that you wouldn't feel regret about that happening, or that you want it to happen. And I'm not saying that you would kill someone you knew to be innocent. But it's simple-- if you know someone is murdered, and yet you continue to say that that is an acceptable byproduct of your beliefs, then you're saying that in some cases, murder is okay.

That argument has never been my argument against the death penalty, but it's a strong argument. How can a moral person say that that is an acceptable risk? Even if only one innocent person is killed, that should be enough to make a moral person recoil in horror. Like I said before, I don't call people that support the death penalty murderers, but logically speaking, in this case, they technically are. You just can't deny the logic that killing an innocent person is murder. It may not be the moral equivalent of other murders, but it's just as wrong.

[Tolkien]

Haha, it was a joke. And you better read my post and the one I quoted again if you didnt get that. Maybe your english is lacking seeing as you didnt comprehend what "in some cases" refered to in that sentance, I dont know. You kinda made a fool out of yourself now. Ewok understood, so not sure what your problem is. I even said in the same post that he didnt meen that. You got issues mate.

It's just that you said it twice to me and you weren't joking then. I didn't think to read Ewok's post, so yes, I guess you have all the right to call me a fool if name calling is your thing. I have no problems, and have done my best to respect each and every point of view in this thread. I'm the guy who made the thread, remember? And I made sure to inform you that I had zero disrespect for you in that same post. What kind of person would I be if I started launching personal attacks against people who posted in a thread I made. I have no problems with anyone here, yourself included. So... Whatevers.

[Ramplate]

Rebecca Schaeffer's Murderer Injured In Prison
Robert John Bardo, 37, Stabbed 11 Times

Convicts can't do their job right :D He lived

[DeadFlagBlues]

Well, just because someone is strapped down, or incapacitated at the moment does not mean they are not a danger. If taken from that gurney and put back into society, there is a decent chance they would repeat. They are still threats, they are just minimalized threats at that point in time. Nobody wants to execute anyone if they can possibly avoid it. The best solution would be for that person to never have committed the crime, but sometimes it's best to be rid of someone who would always otherwise be a threat or someone that justice might demand their life. It's not something that's pleasant, that's for sure, but sometimes I believe it's necessary.

The prisons of today are a form psychological punishment. The focus is now on the person's mentality as opposed to where it was beforehand, i.e. the physical body. Our system is not perfect by any means but it has evolved quite a bit. Quite frankly, our current system is causing more harm than good. For instance, the internal punishment as well as the regulating nature of prison causes a lot of emerging anger towards society. Anger that was perhaps intrinsic due to the nature of the criminal (or often merely misguided, delusional ethics -- or lack thereof -- in comparison to the structural ethical beliefs of society). Sure, there are cases where the prison has manufactured and produced quality drones (the inmates) and can now function within society. But obviously this is not the case.

We are in a juncture of time where the purpose of prison is to regulate and study the criminals. Exterminating them would just be an utter display of power (as I said earlier). But it would also be a way of eliminating a lot of different new concepts within the field of psychology. Many concepts within psychology have developed from the study of disturbed individuals. Its a crude and a horrible concept to think of the inmates as mere experiments but that is, in fact, what they are essentially being used as.

[Ewok Droppings]

We are in a juncture of time where the purpose of prison is to regulate and study the criminals. Exterminating them would just be an utter display of power (as I said earlier). But it would also be a way of eliminating a lot of different new concepts within the field of psychology. Many concepts within psychology have developed from the study of disturbed individuals. Its a crude and a horrible concept to think of the inmates as mere experiments but that is, in fact, what they are essentially being used as.

I'm sorry, but this is basically bullcrap. It's not some psychological game to lock someone up, and it's not someone trying to display some narcissistic megalomania to execute someone. Bullcrap - it's about justice, and getting those people out of society that don't deserve to be in society. It's not about studying them for some dumb psych program. That's probably the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.

Let's put it this way - if someone murders my family then they are locked up for psychological experiments and not for the sake of justice? Doesn't that sound off to you? Sorry - but you're not even close.

[DeadFlagBlues]

I'm sorry, but this is basically bullcrap. It's not some psychological game to lock someone up, and it's not someone trying to display some narcissistic megalomania to execute someone. Bullcrap - it's about justice, and getting those people out of society that don't deserve to be in society. It's not about studying them for some dumb psych program. That's probably the biggest bunch of crap I've ever heard.

Let's put it this way - if someone murders my family then they are locked up for psychological experiments and not for the sake of justice? Doesn't that sound off to you? Sorry - but you're not even close.

Of course its about justice. But the death penalty is about power. The only real difference between this and Medieval methods of punishment is that those were public and much more disturbing. Its a method of striking fear into society. But, of course, due to society growing ever more sensitive (which is not necessarily negative, more positive) we certainly could not continue those acts, could we? Its also not merely sensitivity. No population wants their government to have complete and total power. Which is also why public executions were demolished (as I've said, it's a display of power to strike fear). I realize it sounds rather bleak and not about justice -- but justice does figure into the equation to satisfy the population.

I believe it was Michel Foucault who pointed out in his novel "Discipline and Punish" that there were various prison structures that were invented to help study the inmate or patient (panopticon). There are no real noticeable differences between a psychiatric ward and a prison. Instead of executioners like they had in the Medieval ages, we have psychologists and various scientists (so its really not just a jury and a judge, anymore). They have determined what way would be less harmful physically to the inmate and more harmful mentally.

[Ewok Droppings]

Of course its about justice. But the death penalty is about power. The only real difference between this and Medieval methods of punishment is that those were public and much more disturbing. Its a method of striking fear into society. But, of course, due to society growing ever more sensitive (which is not necessarily negative, more positive) we certainly could not continue those acts, could we? Its also not merely sensitivity. No population wants their government to have complete and total power. Which is also why public executions were demolished (as I've said, it's a display of power to strike fear). I realize it sounds rather bleak and not about justice -- but justice does figure into the equation to satisfy the population.

I believe it was Michel Foucault who pointed out in his novel "Discipline and Punish" that there were various prison structures that were invented to help study the inmate or patient (panopticon). There are no real noticeable differences between a psychiatric ward and a prison. Instead of executioners like they had in the Medieval ages, we have psychologists and various scientists (so its really not just a jury and a judge, anymore). They have determined what way would be less harmful physically to the inmate and more harmful mentally.


If you're trying to say it's a display of power to act as a deterrent - then you have to point out that all prison sentences are a display of power by that formula. You're trying to correlate power to mean deterrence which I'm not sold on. Of course it's supposed to make people not want to commit the crimes, but it's not necessarily so that the govt. can flex their muscles and say "we are powerful because we can punish".

And, you keep wanting to sound like your all knowing about the subject by quoting obscure references to people concerning psychology in prison systems. So what if a psych ward is very similar to a prison. What's your point? The basic premise is that people are sent to prison to be punished, not so some psychologist somewhere can study them. If they want to come in after the fact and collect data from inmates that are being punished as a form of justice then so be it, but that has no sway on the prison sentence itself when handed down.

You're kind of sounding like the guy in the bar during Good Will Hunting who wants to quote obscure passages in books to try to make themselves sound smarter. Honestly, if you don't have anything of real substance to add to the argument other than to try to pull in psychology as being the purpose of prison systems, or that you think it's about power because in your mind (or some quote you came across) you think power = deterrence then you might want to stick a little closer to the topic at hand.

[DeadFlagBlues]

If you're trying to say it's a display of power to act as a deterrent - then you have to point out that all prison sentences are a display of power by that formula. You're trying to correlate power to mean deterrence which I'm not sold on. Of course it's supposed to make people not want to commit the crimes, but it's not necessarily so that the govt. can flex their muscles and say "we are powerful because we can punish".

And, you keep wanting to sound like your all knowing about the subject by quoting obscure references to people concerning psychology in prison systems. So what if a psych ward is very similar to a prison. What's your point? The basic premise is that people are sent to prison to be punished, not so some psychologist somewhere can study them. If they want to come in after the fact and collect data from inmates that are being punished as a form of justice then so be it, but that has no sway on the prison sentence itself when handed down.

You're kind of sounding like the guy in the bar during Good Will Hunting who wants to quote obscure passages in books to try to make themselves sound smarter. Honestly, if you don't have anything of real substance to add to the argument other than to try to pull in psychology as being the purpose of prison systems, or that you think it's about power because in your mind (or some quote you came across) you think power = deterrence then you might want to stick a little closer to the topic at hand.

No, I'm quoting people who have written on the issue and can possibly provide a more elaborate explanation of my argument. Let's take a took at the overall evolution of the prison system to start.

Something as seemingly insignificant as lighting has changed over the centuries. If you notice, Medieval prison systems were always very poorly lit. We can simply look at the prison systems of today and see that they are very well lit. Can you guess the reason? The reason is simply for observational purposes. We will now move to the structure and concept of the Panopticon. This structure was designed by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham in the late eighteenth century. The point of the structure was to observe prisoners while they would never be aware of it. The inmates would always second guess every action due to surveillance. This causes every inmate to think twice about his action.

My point of the psychiatric ward being similar to the prison is a very simple one. That structures of each have their differences, sure, but their overall structures are based around surveillance. This is for two reasons: to keep tabs on the inmates and to study them. While all of this provides us with a means of observation it also provides us with an understanding of the behavioral mechanisms of disturbed individuals. This brings me to my final point. I asserted earlier that the executioners of the Medieval systems were traded for psychologists and scientists. This is for very obvious reasons. We've developed techniques over the years for our prisons to utilize. The main one being regulation. Instead of torturing the inmate -- like in Medieval times -- we regulate their diet, sleep habits, work ethic, and leisure time. Their nature is redirected (sometimes at least, it is not always successful). This is a form of control. A display of power over the individual and society.

I didn't intend to come off as high and mighty by any means. So I apologize if I have.

[Carnage Escobar]

I think it's downright silly to believe in a god, and will gladly mock religion if someone dares me to.

I dare you Steve. No, I double dare you.


As far as this divided issue goes, I can't really take sides. Some people think it's right, some people think it's wrong. Though right and wrong are really just matters of perspective and there is no definitive definition of right and wrong. On one hand, I would be in favor for it, simply because I have no mercy for the merciless and I would definately want justice if some guy killed a family member of mine. Add that to the fact that at times, I'm quite the mean, heartless bastard and I enjoy watching those who deserve suffering suffer. On the other hand, death penalty is an easy way out for criminals and it'd probably be better for someone to rot in a cell till their end of days. Just my opinion.

[Ewok Droppings]

No, I'm quoting people who have written on the issue and can possibly provide a more elaborate explanation of my argument. Let's take a took at the overall evolution of the prison system to start.

Something as seemingly insignificant as lighting has changed over the centuries. If you notice, Medieval prison systems were always very poorly lit. We can simply look at the prison systems of today and see that they are very well lit. Can you guess the reason? The reason is simply for observational purposes. We will now move to the structure and concept of the Panopticon. This structure was designed by the English philosopher Jeremy Bentham in the late eighteenth century. The point of the structure was to observe prisoners while they would never be aware of it. The inmates would always second guess every action due to surveillance. This causes every inmate to think twice about his action.

My point of the psychiatric ward being similar to the prison is a very simple one. That structures of each have their differences, sure, but their overall structures are based around surveillance. This is for two reasons: to keep tabs on the inmates and to study them. While all of this provides us with a means of observation it also provides us with an understanding of the behavioral mechanisms of disturbed individuals. This brings me to my final point. I asserted earlier that the executioners of the Medieval systems were traded for psychologists and scientists. This is for very obvious reasons. We've developed techniques over the years for our prisons to utilize. The main one being regulation. Instead of torturing the inmate -- like in Medieval times -- we regulate their diet, sleep habits, work ethic, and leisure time. Their nature is redirected (sometimes at least, it is not always successful). This is a form of control. A display of power over the individual and society.

I didn't intend to come off as high and mighty by any means. So I apologize if I have.

I'm still not sure why you insist on bringing psychology into the debate. Honestly, it doesn't add much to this point. Whether or not psychologists study them or not, or whether or not the prisoners are subjected to more psychological means of imprisonment really have nothing to do with my statement you quoted earlier. So, again, what is your point (other than to try to assert that psychology is used in a prison system)? Are you trying to say you're against the death penalty because we can study their psychological behavior instead?

[DeadFlagBlues]

I'm still not sure why you insist on bringing psychology into the debate. Honestly, it doesn't add much to this point. Whether or not psychologists study them or not, or whether or not the prisoners are subjected to more psychological means of imprisonment really have nothing to do with my statement you quoted earlier. So, again, what is your point (other than to try to assert that psychology is used in a prison system)? Are you trying to say you're against the death penalty because we can study their psychological behavior instead?

Quite frankly, yes that is what I'm implying. But in my other post I also stated that I'm against the death penalty for other reasons such as: it does not necessarily solve anything -- just merely causes us to be very conscientious of our actions (meaning that we are constantly rechecking ourselves and the margin for error is too high) and for the reasons of the government possibly possessing too much power. It sets a double-standard for murder.

[bbf2]

I think we should use the Death Penalty instead of banning people here.

[Ewok Droppings]

Quite frankly, yes that is what I'm implying. But in my other post I also stated that I'm against the death penalty for other reasons such as: it does not necessarily solve anything -- just merely causes us to be very conscientious of our actions (meaning that we are constantly rechecking ourselves and the margin for error is too high) and for the reasons of the government possibly possessing too much power. It sets a double-standard for murder.

Well, if your argument then is that we can learn more from studying their behaviors, I would say this is a really poor argument. Try telling that to the victim's families. "Sorry, we're not going to execute them, just study them". Bad idea IMO.

[DeadFlagBlues]

Well, if your argument then is that we can learn more from studying their behaviors, I would say this is a really poor argument. Try telling that to the victim's families. "Sorry, we're not going to execute them, just study them". Bad idea IMO.

If the current state of affairs within a prison is oriented towards studying criminals (as well as justice, regulation, and means of power) then there wouldn't be much of a transition. I am merely asserting a much larger process. In fact, I wouldn't see any family really objecting to such an idea. Many families would rather see their family members within a psychiatric hospital (which as I've stated earlier, is much in the same with a prison) than to see them dead. Because with regulation and proper treatment then there is a chance. Whereas, with the death penalty, we are meaning to say there is no possible chance of change within an individual's nature. There is always a chance of redirecting the individual's nature and even possibly curing them -- if there is such a thing.

This would prevent many of the problems within a society. Sure, it would cost a good bit more towards tax payers but it would also eliminate a lot of the need for law-enforcement officers.

[Ewok Droppings]

If the current state of affairs within a prison is oriented towards studying criminals then there wouldn't be much of a transition. I am merely asserting a much larger process. In fact, I wouldn't see any family really objecting to such an idea. Many families would rather see their family members within a psychiatric hospital (which as I've stated earlier, is much in the same with a prison) than to see them dead. There is always a chance of redirecting the individual's nature and even possibly curing them -- if there is such a thing.

This would prevent many of the problems within a society. Sure, it would cost a good bit more towards tax payers but it would also eliminate a lot of the need for law-enforcement officers.

So you think most victim's families would prefer to see the killer(s) put into a mental hospital instead? I highly doubt that.

[DeadFlagBlues]

So you think most victim's families would prefer to see the killer(s) put into a mental hospital instead? I highly doubt that.

Its better than seeing them die. Because with a mental hospital there is a chance of recovery. There is no such goal in the death penalty.

[Tolkien]

Its better than seeing them die. Because with a mental hospital there is a chance of recovery. There is no such goal in the death penalty.

... And what of those who choose NOT to recover? What if they were okay with what they did? You can't cure a sickness if there is no sickness to cure. Some murderers are okay with what they do. And by being okay, by being satisfied with what they have done, how are you the hospital, supposed to cure them? Or help them recover? What are they going to recover from?

[DeadFlagBlues]

... And what of those who choose NOT to recover? What if they were okay with what they did? You can't cure a sickness if there is no sickness to cure. Some murderers are okay with what they do. And by being okay, by being satisfied with what they have done, how are you the hospital, supposed to cure them? Or help them recover? What are they going to recover from?

Just because someone believes they are not sick does not mean they aren't. Thats like saying if someone has symptoms -- while refusing to believe it-- and the doctor deems them to have a particular virus, then they aren't really sick.

Choosing not to recover would be in the same regard as saying they choose not to have the death penalty sentenced to them. They have no choice. The only logical solution of violating another's freedom would be to take away their freedom.

Unless you are implying that murderous behavior isn't a result of an already disturbed or troubled individual.

[Tolkien]

Unless you are implying that murderous behavior isn't a result of an already disturbed or troubled individual.

Of course I'm not saying that. But you should know just as much as the next person that people are like snowflakes. There are no two alike. Even twins differ in attitude and personality. What I am saying is that not all killers and murderers are sick. Of course, in our eyes, what they do must mean that they are disturbed, or that they had troubled lives growing up. But that is not always the case. Though it is in many times, the case, it is not always the case. There exists out there, individuals who are not only at ease with what they do, but who had perfect lives growing up, who had all the hugs and support from both mommy and daddy, but still, at this very moment, kill with ease, with no regret. In our eyes, that makes them sick. That makes them wrong. And we want to do our best to fix them and make them more like us, right? But that brings us back to that snowflake again whereas, not everyone is the same.

[Ewok Droppings]

Its better than seeing them die. Because with a mental hospital there is a chance of recovery. There is no such goal in the death penalty.

Whether or not they "recover" still doesn't necessarily fulfill the demands of justice. Why should they "recover" and be let back out into society when the person or persons that they killed will never be able to be in society again?

[DeadFlagBlues]

Of course I'm not saying that. But you should know just as much as the next person that people are like snowflakes. There are no two alike. Even twins differ in attitude and personality. What I am saying is that not all killers and murderers are sick. Of course, in our eyes, what they do must mean that they are disturbed, or that they had troubled lives growing up. But that is not always the case. Though it is in many times, the case, it is not always the case. There exists out there, individuals who are not only at ease with what they do, but who had perfect lives growing up, who had all the hugs and support from both mommy and daddy, but still, at this very moment, kill with ease, with no regret. In our eyes, that makes them sick. That makes them wrong. And we want to do our best to fix them and make them more like us, right? But that brings us back to that snowflake again whereas, not everyone is the same.

Of course not everyone is the same. But we are looking at this from a perspective that individuals have no reason to kill. There is always a reason deep down. Whether one isn't complacent with life, greed or jealous in wanting another's life. Perhaps even the individual is just plain psychotic. There is no one reason for murder because every murderer has a reason for what they do.

Also, I never meant to imply that all individuals who kill are sick because the situations differ. But we should all agree that anyone is capable of murder but those that act upon those desires -- whether out of defense or not -- are not necessarily unstable, but merely delusional that violence ever solves anything. I also never meant to imply that we should imprison those who acted out of self-defense because that was never clearly the issue at hand. This may seem like just 'lay down and take the punishment' but anyone with a conscience will understand how this concept works.

There are always new concepts of the human mind and brain to study. We could beg the question as to what causes a person to kill in such a wanton manner. We might never know but the possibility of us discovering these reasons is capable through studying the delusional mind. Killing is always wrong. No matter how you word it.

[DeadFlagBlues]

Whether or not they "recover" still doesn't necessarily fulfill the demands of justice. Why should they "recover" and be let back out into society when the person or persons that they killed will never be able to be in society again?

Every individual deserves another chance. Because we have currently deemed an individual incurable -- or however you put it -- does not mean anything. What we deem incurable currently, may mean nothing in the future of psychological studies.

Do not misunderstand me: the action of the individual was wrong. But for one to die because of a delusional human being and to kill the latter would solve literally nothing. We could very well kill every inmate that we deem disturbed but would that honestly solve much? Hardly. It would make it that much easier on us. But this could very well have a snow ball effect with disastrous implications. We would be returning to a primitive and very treacherous form of governmental control over the individual.

[Ramplate]

Every individual deserves another chance...
From Wikipedia:

Edmund Kemper - On August 27, 1964, Kemper shot his grandmother while she sat at the kitchen table putting the finishing touches on her latest children's book. When his grandfather came home from grocery shopping, Kemper shot him as well. Then he called his mother, who urged him to call the police. When questioned, he said that he "just wanted to see what it felt like to kill Grandma and Grandpa." Kemper was just 15 at the time.

Second chance after being committed to Atascadero State hospital and released to his mother's care:

Between May 1972 and February 1973, Kemper embarked on a spree of murders, picking up female students hitchhiking, taking them to isolated rural areas and killing them. He would stab, shoot or smother the victims and afterwards take the bodies back to his apartment where he would have sex with them and then dissect them. He would often dump the bodies in ravines or bury them in fields, although on one occasion he buried the severed head of a 15-year-old girl in his mother's garden as a kind of sick joke, later remarking that his mother "always wanted people to look up to her." He killed six college girls (including two students from UC Santa Cruz and one from Cabrillo College) in this way and would often go hunting for victims after arguing with his mother.

In April 1973, Kemper battered his mother to death with a pick hammer while she slept. He decapitated her, raped her headless body and used her head as a dartboard after putting her vocal cords in the garbage disposal. His murderous urges not yet satiated, he then invited his mother's friend over and killed her too, by strangulation.

Arthur Shawcross - Killed a 10 year od boy. He lured the boy to some woods where he assaulted and strangled him. Four months later, he raped and killed an eight-year-old girl.

Shawcross served 15 years of a 25 year sentence (due to a plea bargain he was only convicted of manslaughter for the 8 year old's death) before he was released on parole.

Second Chance

Starting in March 1988, Shawcross began murdering prostitutes in the area, claiming eleven victims before his capture less than two years later. They were usually strangled and battered to death, and were often mutilated as well. Most of them were found near the Genesee River.

==============================
I could find many more .... not EVERYONE deserves a second chance. Some people Just need to be put out of our collective misery.

[Ewok Droppings]

Every individual deserves another chance.

Wrong - 1000% wrong

Because we have currently deemed an individual incurable -- or however you put it -- does not mean anything. What we deem incurable currently, may mean nothing in the future of psychological studies.
The problem here is that you seem to think that curing them somehow makes what they did go away. They still must answer for the crime. Maybe they're cured, maybe not, but they still must repay society and the victims. It's not a matter of curing someone, it's a matter of justice.

[Tolkien]

Every individual deserves another chance.

That is soooooo not true. Not true at all. Out of respect to you, I know this quote is ment for your debate with Ewok, but I feel I must step in and add my two cents as well, because this is soooo not the case. As Ramplate example's above, even after years in prison and time spent in a mental ward being cured, there are people out there that just cannot be helped. And Ramplate's examples also aid my own arguments that the Death Penalty MUST apply in certain cases out of fear of this kind of exact outcome, should certain murders be allowed to walk free after time spent behind bars. Solid evidence is just too clear to overlook. I thank Ramplate for finding and posting said argumentable evidence for us to use in this debate. Thank you.

[Ramplate]

you're welcome - I watch too many true crime shows on TLC, History, Court TV, and Discovery.

Most Evil is one of my favorite shows.

EDIT - here's another one on TV just tonight.

Kenneth McDuff - McDuff was convicted for raping and murdering three teenagers - Robert Brand, Mark Dunman and Edna Louise Sullivan - a crime that became popularly known as the Broomstick Murders (he choked one of them with a broomstick after raping her - and shot the two others in the head) . Although he was sentenced to death, the sentence was overturned when the US Supreme Court abolished capital punishment in 1972. He served life with the possibility of parole.
Due to extremely crowded Texas prisons, McDuff was paroled in 1989

SECOND CHANCE

He got a job at a gas station making $4 an hour and took a class, at Texas State Technical College in Waco. One year after he left his job at a gas station and dropped out of TSTC he began killing again.
he brutally murdered at least 4 more times - beating and torturing before killing them.

[Tolkien]

History and Discovery are my two personal favorites. I love History's WWII stories.

[DeadFlagBlues]

From Wikipedia:

Edmund Kemper - On August 27, 1964, Kemper shot his grandmother while she sat at the kitchen table putting the finishing touches on her latest children's book. When his grandfather came home from grocery shopping, Kemper shot him as well. Then he called his mother, who urged him to call the police. When questioned, he said that he "just wanted to see what it felt like to kill Grandma and Grandpa." Kemper was just 15 at the time.

Second chance after being committed to Atascadero State hospital and released to his mother's care:

Between May 1972 and February 1973, Kemper embarked on a spree of murders, picking up female students hitchhiking, taking them to isolated rural areas and killing them. He would stab, shoot or smother the victims and afterwards take the bodies back to his apartment where he would have sex with them and then dissect them. He would often dump the bodies in ravines or bury them in fields, although on one occasion he buried the severed head of a 15-year-old girl in his mother's garden as a kind of sick joke, later remarking that his mother "always wanted people to look up to her." He killed six college girls (including two students from UC Santa Cruz and one from Cabrillo College) in this way and would often go hunting for victims after arguing with his mother.

In April 1973, Kemper battered his mother to death with a pick hammer while she slept. He decapitated her, raped her headless body and used her head as a dartboard after putting her vocal cords in the garbage disposal. His murderous urges not yet satiated, he then invited his mother's friend over and killed her too, by strangulation.

Arthur Shawcross - Killed a 10 year od boy. He lured the boy to some woods where he assaulted and strangled him. Four months later, he raped and killed an eight-year-old girl.

Shawcross served 15 years of a 25 year sentence (due to a plea bargain he was only convicted of manslaughter for the 8 year old's death) before he was released on parole.

Second Chance

Starting in March 1988, Shawcross began murdering prostitutes in the area, claiming eleven victims before his capture less than two years later. They were usually strangled and battered to death, and were often mutilated as well. Most of them were found near the Genesee River.

==============================
I could find many more .... not EVERYONE deserves a second chance. Some people Just need to be put out of our collective misery.

And what happens when they are extricated from life? We lose all possible test results that would've arose if we had studied these individuals. Some individuals may never deserve to be set out into the world because of these actions. But we could possibly prevent further incident if we would take the time to study these criminals rather than simply eliminating them.

[DeadFlagBlues]

Wrong - 1000% wrong


The problem here is that you seem to think that curing them somehow makes what they did go away. They still must answer for the crime. Maybe they're cured, maybe not, but they still must repay society and the victims. It's not a matter of curing someone, it's a matter of justice.

No, that is very incorrect. Every individual can be studied and cured. I also stated earlier that justice was a factor within this equation due to satisfying society. Theres no doubt they must pay for their actions. They still are feeling the effects of their actions with prison time. Their every action is regulated and they are tortured to an extent. Also, as I've stated before it is the mind and soul that is being tortured. No longer the body.

[DeadFlagBlues]

That is soooooo not true. Not true at all. Out of respect to you, I know this quote is ment for your debate with Ewok, but I feel I must step in and add my two cents as well, because this is soooo not the case. As Ramplate example's above, even after years in prison and time spent in a mental ward being cured, there are people out there that just cannot be helped. And Ramplate's examples also aid my own arguments that the Death Penalty MUST apply in certain cases out of fear of this kind of exact outcome, should certain murders be allowed to walk free after time spent behind bars. Solid evidence is just too clear to overlook. I thank Ramplate for finding and posting said argumentable evidence for us to use in this debate. Thank you.

For most sentences, the individual is given an allotted amount of time to spend within prison. But this is not always the case. We may never fully rectify this individual but we are also extricating them from society.This allows us to take away their civil liberties that they chose to neglect. I'd say that is the only suitable punishment for a disturbed individual that fits the crime. Which, in effect, we also are spending the time studying them and learning new concepts concerning the delusional, disturbed mind.

I'm not sure if anyone even read my argument but my chief concern about the death penalty is due to governmental power. I'm also not sure if anyone bothered to read upon the author/philosopher that I posted but he does provide ample evidence for my claims (which for the most part, I have provided).

[Ramplate]

And what happens when they are extricated from life? We lose all possible test results that would've arose if we had studied these individuals. Some individuals may never deserve to be set out into the world because of these actions. But we could possibly prevent further incident if we would take the time to study these criminals rather than simply eliminating them.

trust me, they've already been tested and looked at by all kinds of medical people.

Shawcross has been interviewed by doctors many times. He's still sitting in prison. They also talked to Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy and all those people too.

They have come up with some conclusions as to what makes a serial killer - but preventing them in the first place is easier said than done.

Oh, that last one? Kenneth McDuff. His mother carried a gun at all times and his father said to the police "You can kill him when you find him"
I can't think of a better endorsement than that for the death penalty

[Tolkien]

And what happens when they are extricated from life? We lose all possible test results that would've arose if we had studied these individuals. Some individuals may never deserve to be set out into the world because of these actions. But we could possibly prevent further incident if we would take the time to study these criminals rather than simply eliminating them.

No, that is very incorrect. Every individual can be studied and cured. I also stated earlier that justice was a factor within this equation due to satisfying society. Theres no doubt they must pay for their actions. They still are feeling the effects of their actions with prison time. Their every action is regulated and they are tortured to an extent. Also, as I've stated before it is the mind and soul that is being tortured. No longer the body.

Again I add... THAT IS VERY UNTRUE. You cannot cure everyone, you cannot cure everything... There are many out there who are different from us and that will not change, that cannot change. You cannot make everyone exactly like us. There are those in the world who will grow up to live and breathe a certain way, and there is little we can do to change that. You can change the body, you can change the facial features, and in some cases, you can change the mind... But there will be those who's minds cannot be changed, no matter what the study, no matter what the cure so-to-speak. And say we do study these individuals... And we discover a way to change their minds into thinking how we live and think, how we walk and breathe... Isn't that forcing someone into living against his/her will, and thus taking away his or her freedoms?

To live without the freedom or will to be yourself is a fate worst then death...

But if ultimate punishment is what you are seeking here... Then stay the course.

[DeadFlagBlues]

trust me, they've already been tested and looked at by all kinds of medical people.

Shawcross has been interviewed by doctors many times. He's still sitting in prison. They also talked to Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy and all those people too.

They have come up with some conclusions as to what makes a serial killer - but preventing them in the first place is easier said than done.

Oh, that last one? Kenneth McDuff. His mother carried a gun at all times and his father said to the police "You can kill him when you find him"
I can't think of a better endorsement than that for the death penalty

Being interviewed 'many' times means nothing. An inmate is most likely inclined to fabricate stories and tell numerous lies. Sure, this is not always the case but one can not deduce results just from a few interviews. What needs to be studied is behavioral mechanisms. I also posted an example of the Panopticon concept (which is the best example of studying inmates). Which has influenced much thought concerning the modern day prison systems.

We know the convict is going to most likely fabricate stories and make up untruths to lead various psychologists and doctors in the wrong direction. Albeit in some cases convicts were brutally honest with the doctors. But this doesn't necessarily prove anything.

[Tolkien]

trust me, they've already been tested and looked at by all kinds of medical people.

Shawcross has been interviewed by doctors many times. He's still sitting in prison. They also talked to Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy and all those people too.

They have come up with some conclusions as to what makes a serial killer - but preventing them in the first place is easier said than done.

Oh, that last one? Kenneth McDuff. His mother carried a gun at all times and his father said to the police "You can kill him when you find him"
I can't think of a better endorsement than that for the death penalty

Points well made there... It's what I'm trying to say. It's not like studies havn't been conducted yet. It's been going on for entire decades now. They've already studied the worst of the worst with little if any, results to show for it. It's all about progress, right? If you're not making progress in something, isn't it the logical course to change your way of thinking, if the current stance isn't working?

[DeadFlagBlues]

Points well made there... It's what I'm trying to say. It's not like studies havn't been conducted yet. It's been going on for entire decades now. They've already studied the worst of the worst with little if any, results to show for it. It's all about progress, right? If you're not making progress in something, isn't it the logical course to change your way of thinking, if the current stance isn't working?

So you're saying that various new concepts haven't arose from the study of criminals? Then how would one develop Criminal Psychology? So I'm not really sure what you're implying here. Simply killing them off will not do any good for the study of criminals.

[Tolkien]

We're not talking about simply killing them off here. But if studies end with zero results, and nothing, neither justice nor results have arised from their time spent in wards and mental hospitals, what else is there? Why not hold sessions during court cases to determined if one is actually capable of retribution? And if so, then maybe lesser more long term sentenceing should be placed on the menu. But if not... The the harsh penalties should still remain.

[DeadFlagBlues]

We're not talking about simply killing them off here. But if studies end with zero results, and nothing, neither justice nor results have arised from their time spent in wards and mental hospitals, what else is there? Why not hold sessions during court cases to determined if one is actually capable of retribution? And if so, then maybe lesser more long term sentenceing should be placed on the menu. But if not... The the harsh penalties should still remain.

No, that is absolutely not true. You are implying there have been no contributions to the field of Criminal Psychology through study of individuals within a prison and that is not true. In fact, most of what we have today came from the study of criminals within a prison system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish

I'd suggest reading the article. Its brief but it does provide examples (if in fact that is the link I remembered). But that leads me to another point that I asserted earlier. The similar structures of a psychiatric hospital and a prison. They both are aimed at studying an individual. I suggest looking back at some of my posts instead of me repeating myself over and over. Also, many prisoners will spend a lifetime in prison. They should also be studied and tested throughout the duration of their time spent until death. Which is, in reality, not so different than what is happening now.

[Ewok Droppings]

No, that is very incorrect. Every individual can be studied and cured. I also stated earlier that justice was a factor within this equation due to satisfying society. Theres no doubt they must pay for their actions. They still are feeling the effects of their actions with prison time. Their every action is regulated and they are tortured to an extent. Also, as I've stated before it is the mind and soul that is being tortured. No longer the body.

Sorry - but this is your opinion and I think it's wrong. You can't "cure" someone and say they have satisfied the demands of justice. That's crap pure and simple.

Again - you keep trying to inject your views of psychological studies on inmates into the equation. It doesn't amount to anything if you can't satisfy the demands of justice first. You're trying to make this argument something that it's not just for the sake of trying to interject your views and opinions about how great psychological studies of inmates are. Sorry, but this doesn't fly.

[DeadFlagBlues]

Sorry - but this is your opinion and I think it's wrong. You can't "cure" someone and say they have satisfied the demands of justice. That's crap pure and simple.

Well, no, thats not really what I meant. What I mean is that taking away their freedom (civil liberties) is the ultimate form of punishment -- without killing them -- in regard to the freedom of the current state of affairs. They violated and infringed on the rights of others, so theirs will be rightfully taken away.

The demands of justice are rightfully served and in extricating them from a society, that is retribution (i.e. eliminating freedom). I'm not sure what other way one would 'serve' justice other than to kill them in retribution which would be contrary to the studies of criminals.

[Ewok Droppings]

Well, no, thats not really what I meant. What I mean is that taking away their freedom (civil liberties) is the ultimate form of punishment -- without killing them -- in regard to the freedom of the current state of affairs. They violated and infringed on the rights of others, so theirs will be rightfully taken away.

The demands of justice are rightfully served and in extricating them from a society, that is retribution (i.e. eliminating freedom). I'm not sure what other way one would 'serve' justice other than to kill them in retribution which would be contrary to the studies of criminals.
Well, justice has, throughout history, been served with taking someone's life when it demands it. Simply removing them from society does not necessarily fulfill the demands of justice and studying them like a lab rat does nothing for justice. Jail isn't always an adequate form of punishment IMO.

[DeadFlagBlues]

Well, justice has, throughout history, been served with taking someone's life when it demands it. Simply removing them from society does not necessarily fulfill the demands of justice and studying them like a lab rat does nothing for justice. Jail isn't always an adequate form of punishment IMO.

I understand what you are saying. But studying an individual will further the knowledge of every psychologist, scientist, and virtually any kind of doctor in the fields today. Many may feel that they were cheated but I believe that if truly understood we can come to the reasonable conclusion that to eliminate them, we eliminate any possibility of improving society. We are merely reverting back to prior social systems and grotesque systems of justice.

Eliminating an individual does not improve society. It merely begets more violence. That is the last thing we really need. We can perhaps notice early signs of a disturbed individual if we continue the study of them. Because if we take one life, there are billions of disturbed individuals out there just looking for their next victim. And thus we have no possible way of stopping these problems. They will continue and continue ad infinitum until we've systematically killed every inmate because we have no other way. We may not catch every delusional individual, but with proper studies and experimentation we can help prevent further cases like in the former posts.

[Ewok Droppings]

I understand what you are saying. But studying an individual will further the knowledge of every psychologist, scientist, and virtually any kind of doctor in the fields today.

So what! It's not about the psychologists - I don't understand why you don't get that. Screw the psychologists, this isn't their justice, it's the victims.


Eliminating an individual does not improve society. It merely begets more violence. I don't share this opinion. I think you could make the same argument that locking someone up for armed robbery and sticking them in a cell for 20 years doesn't help society either. But this isn't always about helping society become a better place necessarily, it's about serving justice to the victims and to society. Prisons in general don't make society a better place other than the fact that these guys are off the streets and away from the general populace.

You keep wanting to make the argument for psychology which to me is completely absurd. If you have something better than this as a reason why we shouldn't allow the death penalty then we can discuss that. But the whole psychology argument is pointless and ridiculous and not going to sway me even slightly.

[Tolkien]

No, that is absolutely not true. You are implying there have been no contributions to the field of Criminal Psychology through study of individuals within a prison and that is not true. In fact, most of what we have today came from the study of criminals within a prison system.
Noooo, of course not. I never once implied that there has never been any kind of contributions into the field of criminal psychology. Of course there have been. I don't think our prisons would be where they are today if it had not been for vass improvements in the way we house, treat and judge convicted criminals. I just said that with certain convicted killers, there is and will never be any progress made. Some people just do not change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discipline_and_Punish

I'd suggest reading the article. Its brief but it does provide examples (if in fact that is the link I remembered). But that leads me to another point that I asserted earlier. The similar structures of a psychiatric hospital and a prison. They both are aimed at studying an individual. I suggest looking back at some of my posts instead of me repeating myself over and over. Also, many prisoners will spend a lifetime in prison. They should also be studied and tested throughout the duration of their time spent until death. Which is, in reality, not so different than what is happening now.
Of course that article was a very interesting read, and I understand what you mean by it. I do not mean to have you repeat yourself over and over again to me, but as Ramplate solidly put it, killers like Kenneth McDuff, Edmund Kemper and Arthur Shawcross, who had been given second chances, sent to prison, commited to mental wards, let out supposibly cured, only to continue where they left off. The people they killed after they were released would have never lossed their lives if the death penalty had been given to them.

[Ramplate]

Being interviewed 'many' times means nothing. An inmate is most likely inclined to fabricate stories and tell numerous lies. Sure, this is not always the case but one can not deduce results just from a few interviews. What needs to be studied is behavioral mechanisms. I also posted an example of the Panopticon concept (which is the best example of studying inmates). Which has influenced much thought concerning the modern day prison systems.

We know the convict is going to most likely fabricate stories and make up untruths to lead various psychologists and doctors in the wrong direction. Albeit in some cases convicts were brutally honest with the doctors. But this doesn't necessarily prove anything.

The people I am talking about have been Professionals (Doctors and Criminologists) doing studies for decades already - ------- YES! Actual studies!!!

And they have found some conclusive evidence as to what makes a Serial Killer ---- but there is little we can do to ensure that they never exist.

Common themes in Serial Killers (from Court TV Crime Laboratory):

Statistically, the average serial killer is a white male from a lower to middle class background, usually in his twenties or thirties. Many were physically or emotionally abused by parents. Some were adopted. As children, fledgling serial killers often set fires, torture animals, and wet their beds (these red-flag behaviors are known as the "triad" of symptoms.) Brain injuries are common. Some are very intelligent and have shown great promise as successful professionals. They are also fascinated with the police and authority in general. They will either have attempted to become police themselves but were rejected, or worked as security guards, or had served in the military. Many, including John Gacy, the Hillside Stranglers, and Ted Bundy, will disguise themselves as law enforcement officials to gain access to their victims.

Most killers don't look crazy and most don't act it either - some minds are simply evil as well. And some don't even fit the profiles - they just don't have the capacity to care about other human beings.

Now how do you propose we stop that?

[Tolkien]

Well, how can we? You just named 60% of Middle-America. ;)

[bbf2]

I think we should use the Death Penalty instead of giving out traffic tickets.

[Ewok Droppings]

I think we should use the Death Penalty instead of giving out traffic tickets.

I think we should use the death penalty on all Oakland Raiders fans.

[DeadFlagBlues]

So what! It's not about the psychologists - I don't understand why you don't get that. Screw the psychologists, this isn't their justice, it's the victims.


I don't share this opinion. I think you could make the same argument that locking someone up for armed robbery and sticking them in a cell for 20 years doesn't help society either. But this isn't always about helping society become a better place necessarily, it's about serving justice to the victims and to society. Prisons in general don't make society a better place other than the fact that these guys are off the streets and away from the general populace.

You keep wanting to make the argument for psychology which to me is completely absurd. If you have something better than this as a reason why we shouldn't allow the death penalty then we can discuss that. But the whole psychology argument is pointless and ridiculous and not going to sway me even slightly.

Serving justice to society is extricating them from society. Killing them merely reverts us back to a very primitive society. I'm not sure what more needs to be done other than to take away their liberty. We have no other way of serving justice than to take away their freedom because it does fit the crime. It is simply the most logical conclusion without killing them.

I've stated why I believe the death penalty is wrong and it has everything to do with excess power. I've given my point of view and it seems it has long since been forgotten. Which, in fact, was my main point. This recent discussion has been largely irrelevant to my argument.

[DeadFlagBlues]

Noooo, of course not. I never once implied that there has never been any kind of contributions into the field of criminal psychology. Of course there have been. I don't think our prisons would be where they are today if it had not been for vass improvements in the way we house, treat and judge convicted criminals. I just said that with certain convicted killers, there is and will never be any progress made. Some people just do not change.


Of course that article was a very interesting read, and I understand what you mean by it. I do not mean to have you repeat yourself over and over again to me, but as Ramplate solidly put it, killers like Kenneth McDuff, Edmund Kemper and Arthur Shawcross, who had been given second chances, sent to prison, commited to mental wards, let out supposibly cured, only to continue where they left off. The people they killed after they were released would have never lossed their lives if the death penalty had been given to them.

Change is not important to my discussion. The betterment of psychological studies and furthering prison structures into effect means of studying an individual is important.

Not every individual is set free of prison and suddenly turns back into a murderer. This is not always the case. Unless you are implying that we can somehow tell the future, then it is always absurd to say "we shouldn't have let him out". Hindsight is always 20/20. So I'm not sure where you're going with this.

I even supplied you with various other reasons. We do not necessarily ever have to release these individuals from society. We could study them until they die. Which is better than letting them rot away or killing them.

[DeadFlagBlues]

The people I am talking about have been Professionals (Doctors and Criminologists) doing studies for decades already - ------- YES! Actual studies!!!

And they have found some conclusive evidence as to what makes a Serial Killer ---- but there is little we can do to ensure that they never exist.

Common themes in Serial Killers (from Court TV Crime Laboratory):

Statistically, the average serial killer is a white male from a lower to middle class background, usually in his twenties or thirties. Many were physically or emotionally abused by parents. Some were adopted. As children, fledgling serial killers often set fires, torture animals, and wet their beds (these red-flag behaviors are known as the "triad" of symptoms.) Brain injuries are common. Some are very intelligent and have shown great promise as successful professionals. They are also fascinated with the police and authority in general. They will either have attempted to become police themselves but were rejected, or worked as security guards, or had served in the military. Many, including John Gacy, the Hillside Stranglers, and Ted Bundy, will disguise themselves as law enforcement officials to gain access to their victims.

Most killers don't look crazy and most don't act it either - some minds are simply evil as well. And some don't even fit the profiles - they just don't have the capacity to care about other human beings.

Now how do you propose we stop that?

Exactly. That is precisely my point. We've already discovered various reasons that produce a serial killer. Now we further those studies. I'm no psychologist so I couldn't possibly provide you with examples of testing. But that much is irrelevant. We've gotten extremely far in psychology and science in general, there is no reason to say our progress is at an end.

There are always methods of preventing these incidents. It is simply a matter of testing individuals. I never once said we could catch every person. But it is certainly better than doing nothing, letting them rot, or killing them thus eliminating any possible furthering of psychological studies.

How can anyone argue that?

[Ramplate]

Pfft, there's plenty of messed up people to study - there will never be a shortage - and yes they've put them through psychological tests already. They've found that a person who does these things has trouble with recognizing Cause and Consequences. That is to say that they cannot recognize the consequences of their actions as well as most people do. They have tested this by putting a series of pictures in front of them and asked them to put them in order - for example:

A little Boy plays with matches
the house catches on fire
firemen are called
they put out the fire

These people can't put such things in order as well as everyone else.

They've also started brain scans and EEG readings on these people as well as tests to see how they react emotionally to pictures and words flashed in front of them - hitched up to machines that measure their responses or lack thereof.

How much testing is there to do? We have a basic common formula as to how a killer is created. It doesn't answer all the problems but nothing ever will.

As far as prevention goes --- How do you stop all child abuse, all psychosis, all devient thoughts, desires, and all brain injuries? The answer is again - you don't. There is no way to prevent people from being cruel to each other in all cases - so the best alternatve is to remove the worst of them from society in the most permanent way possible

[Ewok Droppings]

Serving justice to society is extricating them from society. Killing them merely reverts us back to a very primitive society. I'm not sure what more needs to be done other than to take away their liberty. We have no other way of serving justice than to take away their freedom because it does fit the crime. It is simply the most logical conclusion without killing them.

I've stated why I believe the death penalty is wrong and it has everything to do with excess power. I've given my point of view and it seems it has long since been forgotten. Which, in fact, was my main point. This recent discussion has been largely irrelevant to my argument.
I would agree with your last sentence, the topic of psychology was irrelevant. As for what would constitute justice - your idea of simply removing their civil liberties may not be enough in the eyes of the victims families or in the eyes of the justice system itself. My biggest problem with simply locking them up is that you're locking up someone just the same as someone who is maybe a serial burglar and subject to the "3 strikes you're out" law. Why should someone who has committed very heinous crimes be sentenced the same as someone who steals cars repeatedly? How is that justice?

At least I can appreciate your point of view better without discussing using them as psych patients.

[Necross]

Well that 3 strikes your out law is idiotic imho. So many things can go wrong with that.

[Tolkien]

Change is not important to my discussion. The betterment of psychological studies and furthering prison structures into effect means of studying an individual is important.
Your First Paragraph: Thought change is not an important role in your discussion, it is a vital role in the outcome of your psychological studies, and thus becomes an important part of your debate. The study of one killer will help to further the hopes in which to change another killer, somewhere down the line.

Not every individual is set free of prison and suddenly turns back into a murderer. This is not always the case. Unless you are implying that we can somehow tell the future, then it is always absurd to say "we shouldn't have let him out". Hindsight is always 20/20. So I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Your Second Paragraph: Though it is clear that we cannot tell the future of a murderer, we can, through studies while in court, conclude if said murderer is capable of change or not. Of course not everyone who is set free does it again... Which I have said many times before. But, those in which we conclude to be too dangerous to ever set foot on free soil again should either face a lifetime behind bars, or face execution, as justice demands it.

I even supplied you with various other reasons. We do not necessarily ever have to release these individuals from society. We could study them until they die. Which is better than letting them rot away or killing them.
Your Third Paragraph: And I have taken those reasons into account, and even agreed with a few of them if you remember. But taking a murderer and studying them instead of allowing them their punishments is very absurd to think about. Studying a man who commited multiple acts of murder instead of allowing him to rot in prison for his crimes, or sentenced to death is like saying even though he did it, instead of prison, we're going to put him in a hospital and run tests on him. Somehow, I don't see the paying for his crimes part of it?

[Tolkien]

Well that 3 strikes your out law is idiotic imho. So many things can go wrong with that.

Well, it's not like it's for everything. You don't get three DUIs and get put away for life, you don't get three Parking Tickets and be locked up forever... But three harsh crimes back to back to back? If you do it the first time, you pay for it. If you do it a second time, you get the final warning... But if you're dizzy enough to do it three times in a row, you deserve to be locked up for life.

[Ewok Droppings]

Well that 3 strikes your out law is idiotic imho. So many things can go wrong with that.

Well, we're not here to debate that law. It was an example. You can apply it to a different law if you like. For instance, why punish someone the same if they murder someone (prison only) as someone who held up a bank and led cops on a high speed chase with a hostage or something but nobody ended up hurt in the end. The point is the same.

[Tolkien]

^^ Nicely put Mr. Droppings, nicely put. ;)

[DeadFlagBlues]

Pfft, there's plenty of messed up people to study - there will never be a shortage - and yes they've put them through psychological tests already. They've found that a person who does these things has trouble with recognizing Cause and Consequences. That is to say that they cannot recognize the consequences of their actions as well as most people do. They have tested this by putting a series of pictures in front of them and asked them to put them in order - for example:

A little Boy plays with matches
the house catches on fire
firemen are called
they put out the fire

These people can't put such things in order as well as everyone else.

They've also started brain scans and EEG readings on these people as well as tests to see how they react emotionally to pictures and words flashed in front of them - hitched up to machines that measure their responses or lack thereof.

How much testing is there to do? We have a basic common formula as to how a killer is created. It doesn't answer all the problems but nothing ever will.

As far as prevention goes --- How do you stop all child abuse, all psychosis, all devient thoughts, desires, and all brain injuries? The answer is again - you don't. There is no way to prevent people from being cruel to each other in all cases - so the best alternatve is to remove the worst of them from society in the most permanent way possible

How exactly do you know it never will solve all of the problems? Of course new problems will always arise but it is certainly worth a try. If what you say is true, then science should not bother studying anything more. We have a sufficient and basic knowledge of the world and it should cease and do nothing more.

There will always be new problems to solve. There are plenty of tests, experiments and studies out there that have deterred a lot of problems. Which we have developed over the years and will continue to do so. But as long as we systematically eliminate individuals from society, we have no way of bettering society in regard to criminal anthropology.

[DeadFlagBlues]

I would agree with your last sentence, the topic of psychology was irrelevant. As for what would constitute justice - your idea of simply removing their civil liberties may not be enough in the eyes of the victims families or in the eyes of the justice system itself. My biggest problem with simply locking them up is that you're locking up someone just the same as someone who is maybe a serial burglar and subject to the "3 strikes you're out" law. Why should someone who has committed very heinous crimes be sentenced the same as someone who steals cars repeatedly? How is that justice?

At least I can appreciate your point of view better without discussing using them as psych patients.

But then what are you asserting? That we chop a burglars hands off if they steal an item? That is absurd. The ultimate way of punishment without bloodshed is to take away their freedom. Anything else would be considered inhumane.

As I've said before and many times before me, violence begets more violence. The families may never feel fully justified even if the criminal is murdered. If they request that we torture him or her in the same away as their beloved, would it then justify itself? I doubt it. Because then we've again reverted back to grotesque torture methods.

[DeadFlagBlues]

Your First Paragraph: Thought change is not an important role in your discussion, it is a vital role in the outcome of your psychological studies, and thus becomes an important part of your debate. The study of one killer will help to further the hopes in which to change another killer, somewhere down the line.


Your Second Paragraph: Though it is clear that we cannot tell the future of a murderer, we can, through studies while in court, conclude if said murderer is capable of change or not. Of course not everyone who is set free does it again... Which I have said many times before. But, those in which we conclude to be too dangerous to ever set foot on free soil again should either face a lifetime behind bars, or face execution, as justice demands it.


Your Third Paragraph: And I have taken those reasons into account, and even agreed with a few of them if you remember. But taking a murderer and studying them instead of allowing them their punishments is very absurd to think about. Studying a man who commited multiple acts of murder instead of allowing him to rot in prison for his crimes, or sentenced to death is like saying even though he did it, instead of prison, we're going to put him in a hospital and run tests on him. Somehow, I don't see the paying for his crimes part of it?

Apparently you misunderstood my first paragraph. What I am positing is that change in the individual is not necessarily important within the matter. It is merely a by-product of tests and a regulated lifestyle. It is a goal, but the furthering of psychological studies proves to be more important.

How can we conclude whether a murderer will change, or not? As I've stated before, holding the individual behind bars will extricate them from society as well as allow us to further our knowledge of criminal anthropology.I'm not sure how you can ever determine this. But you are making very presumptuous opinions on an individuals future which can never be determined. Because lets face it, the future does not exist. So we can therefore not determine anything aside from the present day.

My point is that if we sentence the criminal to the death penalty we run the risk of a loss in developing new concepts within criminal psychology. This may not seem justified to the families, but as I've asserted, if truly understand we run more risk in murdering this individual than we do studying him. There is no person out there who is incapable of rational thought that can not come to the conclusion that developing new concepts within psychology will help eliminate future cases (possibly). So eliminating this individual will be purely out of cold-blooded revenge.

So that is to say if justice is about cold-blooded revenge and murdering an individual, then count me out.

[Ewok Droppings]

But then what are you asserting? That we chop a burglars hands off if they steal an item? That is absurd. The ultimate way of punishment without bloodshed is to take away their freedom. Anything else would be considered inhumane.

As I've said before and many times before me, violence begets more violence. The families may never feel fully justified even if the criminal is murdered. If they request that we torture him or her in the same away as their beloved, would it then justify itself? I doubt it. Because then we've again reverted back to grotesque torture methods.

Now you're using ridiculous argumentation to try to lend credence to your point. Just because you think violence begets violence doesn't mean that it's not the way that we shouldn't punish violent criminals. You state "The ultimate way of punishment without bloodshed is to take away their freedom." but that's your opinion. I'm FOR shedding blood (executions) for violent criminals. I understand you don't like violence, but some of us don't agree. If you want to be a pacifist then that's fine, but don't try to use that line of reasoning to say that we are simply aiding into the system. I have NEVER heard of a case where some guy decided to go on a killing spree because he thought it was right due to societies death penalty stance.

If you're religious (Christian) than it's something that has been preached since the Old Testament. Would you say that God didn't understand that violence begets more violence and that his commandments for certain crimes were wrong? Whether or not it begets more violence (which is highly debatable) is still no reason why we shouldn't execute violent offenders.

The problem is that you're trying to prove your point by using your opinions. Opinions are not facts. If you don't like the idea of the death penalty, then simply state that. There comes a point in the argument when you simply have to let it go at "this is what I believe" and move on.

[Fighting American]

But then what are you asserting? That we chop a burglars hands off if they steal an item? That is absurd. The ultimate way of punishment without bloodshed is to take away their freedom. Anything else would be considered inhumane.

As I've said before and many times before me, violence begets more violence. The families may never feel fully justified even if the criminal is murdered. If they request that we torture him or her in the same away as their beloved, would it then justify itself? I doubt it. Because then we've again reverted back to grotesque torture methods.

First of all the "criminal" is not "murdered". He is killed. There is a difference. He is paying for the actual "MURDER" he committed, in all likelihood.

Also...you do yourself a disservice by arguing from scenarios that we don't have. No western court of law will allow the family to torture the guy. So why even bring that up? The guy had a defense lawyer, a jury of his peers, and a trial. It's over. Justice....not revenge, is served.

[DeadFlagBlues]

Now you're using ridiculous argumentation to try to lend credence to your point. Just because you think violence begets violence doesn't mean that it's not the way that we shouldn't punish violent criminals. You state "The ultimate way of punishment without bloodshed is to take away their freedom." but that's your opinion. I'm FOR shedding blood (executions) for violent criminals. I understand you don't like violence, but some of us don't agree. If you want to be a pacifist then that's fine, but don't try to use that line of reasoning to say that we are simply aiding into the system. I have NEVER heard of a case where some guy decided to go on a killing spree because he thought it was right due to societies death penalty stance.

If you're religious (Christian) than it's something that has been preached since the Old Testament. Would you say that God didn't understand that violence begets more violence and that his commandments for certain crimes were wrong? Whether or not it begets more violence (which is highly debatable) is still no reason why we shouldn't execute violent offenders.

The problem is that you're trying to prove your point by using your opinions. Opinions are not facts. If you don't like the idea of the death penalty, then simply state that. There comes a point in the argument when you simply have to let it go at "this is what I believe" and move on.


My religious beliefs are irrelevant in this particular scenario. But also, as I've stated before, we were given freedom. If an individual decides to take advantage of freedom and violate another's, wouldn't it be entirely justified to take away his? I'm not sure what you would otherwise be aiding to if not the continuation of violence.

This entire debate has been based around opinions and individuals posting their opinions based off repeated instances. Which is unfair, because one can not predict the future (in the case of secondary chances). I'm not simply stating that we should let the individual go at the first sign of progress. Ironically enough, the system you are defending has let plenty of individuals run free and have committed the same murderous act.

I am not positing that we let every individual go. But to further the psychological fields of criminals we must detain these individuals and not allow them to run free again. Of course this is not always going to work because some criminals do change. The whole argument is at a moot point because we can never say an individual will turn around and do it again. If we try and prove it via history, we are using another false piece of 'evidence'.

[DeadFlagBlues]

First of all the "criminal" is not "murdered". He is killed. There is a difference. He is paying for the actual "MURDER" he committed, in all likelihood.

Also...you do yourself a disservice by arguing from scenarios that we don't have. No western court of law will allow the family to torture the guy. So why even bring that up? The guy had a defense lawyer, a jury of his peers, and a trial. It's over. Justice....not revenge, is served.

What is the difference? Taking another life is taking another life. The semantics do not matter. And, according to Dictionary.com this is how one defines 'revenge':

1.to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, esp. in a resentful or vindictive spirit.

That is my point. No court will allow the torture of a human being because that is inhumane. But if that is what the family wants, then why not? The family might feel more justified if the individual is tortured rather than just 'killed' with passive means.

[Fighting American]

What is the difference? Taking another life is taking another life. The semantics do not matter. And, according to Dictionary.com this is how one defines 'revenge':


]Motive is the difference. You can't possibly compare the murder of an innocent child, man or woman to the killing administered by a court system. [/COLOR] That is not revenge. You are not taking matters in your own hands. You let the justice sytem work for you.

1.to exact punishment or expiation for a wrong on behalf of, esp. in a resentful or vindictive spirit.

That is my point. No court will allow the torture of a human being because that is inhumane.

No.... that was no your point. You were painting some extreme scenario instead of debating from what actually exists.


But if that is what the family wants, then why not?

Because then it really would be vengence if you place it into the hands of the family. That's why we have a "system".

Because we are allowing them to judge the worth of his life by sentencing him to the death penalty. The family might feel more justified if the individual is tortured rather than just 'killed' with passive means.

The courts are judging this guy. Not the family.

[DeadFlagBlues]

The courts are judging this guy. Not the family.

You still are avoiding the question. If the family feels more justified if the individual is tortured in retribution for their beloved (as they were), then why not? Because according to many posts here, the family is the chief concern (don't misunderstand me, they are). But in many cases we can not possibly appease the family's every need because it would sometimes be deemed unethical in treatment.

So as it always is, the courts judge the individual. It is not up to the family to decide. The family may never feel justified no matter how the individual is treated.

I think what you mean to say the court system performs the revenge for you. There is no difference, check the definition. Even if it is performed in a vicarious manner. It is still revenge. The court acts as an extension of the individual in this case. If it were the other way around, the court would simply be arbitrarily killing an individual on its own accord. Which would negate the purpose of the family, which would be even more infuriating (other than the simple fact the family were the only ones who feel the pain and anger towards the criminal).

[Ewok Droppings]

My religious beliefs are irrelevant in this particular scenario. But also, as I've stated before, we were given freedom. If an individual decides to take advantage of freedom and violate another's, wouldn't it be entirely justified to take away his? I'm not sure what you would otherwise be aiding to if not the continuation of violence.

This entire debate has been based around opinions and individuals posting their opinions based off repeated instances. Which is unfair, because one can not predict the future (in the case of secondary chances). I'm not simply stating that we should let the individual go at the first sign of progress. Ironically enough, the system you are defending has let plenty of individuals run free and have committed the same murderous act.

I am not positing that we let every individual go. But to further the psychological fields of criminals we must detain these individuals and not allow them to run free again. Of course this is not always going to work because some criminals do change. The whole argument is at a moot point because we can never say an individual will turn around and do it again. If we try and prove it via history, we are using another false piece of 'evidence'.
Well, the problem with your logic is that you think simply taking away their freedom is the same as them taking away someone's life. There is a difference between freedom and life. I just don't agree with you that it's an equal punishment when you take away someone's freedom as when you take away someone's life.

We're sort of running in circles here. Your arguments are basically on par with those that are against the death penalty up to this point - nothing really new. So, that's OK because that's your stance. We can agree to disagree unless you have another reasoning for why you think the death penalty should be abolished. Right now, it's just the same thing as the others have said.

[DeadFlagBlues]

Well, the problem with your logic is that you think simply taking away their freedom is the same as them taking away someone's life. There is a difference between freedom and life. I just don't agree with you that it's an equal punishment when you take away someone's freedom as when you take away someone's life.

We're sort of running in circles here. Your arguments are basically on par with those that are against the death penalty up to this point - nothing really new. So, that's OK because that's your stance. We can agree to disagree unless you have another reasoning for why you think the death penalty should be abolished. Right now, it's just the same thing as the others have said.

I'm okay with that. All of my beliefs and stances have been elaborated upon and explained (hopefully enough so that they are understood).

I do completely agree we are running in circles. This does always seem to be the result of every debate concerning a difficult issue such as the one at hand.

[Ramplate]

How exactly do you know it never will solve all of the problems? Of course new problems will always arise but it is certainly worth a try. If what you say is true, then science should not bother studying anything more. We have a sufficient and basic knowledge of the world and it should cease and do nothing more.

There will always be new problems to solve. There are plenty of tests, experiments and studies out there that have deterred a lot of problems. Which we have developed over the years and will continue to do so. But as long as we systematically eliminate individuals from society, we have no way of bettering society in regard to criminal anthropology.

The problem is you cant control everyone's lives down to what they do every day. that is what it would take to stop some of the things I mentioned

[DeadFlagBlues]

The problem is you cant control everyone's lives down to what they do every day. that is what it would take to stop some of the things I mentioned

Well, I will admit you can not control a person's life because that would be a heavy violation of Kantian ethics as well as resorting to an authoritarian system. But the point here is that with the means of regulation within a prison system (this can be observed and is rather obvious) we can control the person to that extent. There will always be individuals breaking the law. But the only way to help deter this is for stricter educational systems (much like what Cuba currently has -- but not to the harsh extent of theirs). Not to say education as a concrete means of deterrence, but it would most likely help. As well as furthering our knowledge of individuals -- who are delusional/and or disturbed -- whereas, we develop entirely new concepts.

Through this system I believe we can safely reach an alternative. I don't mean to imply it is full-proof, because it isn't. But like any developing theory there are problems that will arise as well as negative by-products. As Ewok Droppings said, we are indeed running in circles here.

[Fighting American]

You still are avoiding the question. If the family feels more justified if the individual is tortured in retribution for their beloved (as they were), then why not? Because according to many posts here, the family is the chief concern (don't misunderstand me, they are). But in many cases we can not possibly appease the family's every need because it would sometimes be deemed unethical in treatment.

So as it always is, the courts judge the individual. It is not up to the family to decide. The family may never feel justified no matter how the individual is treated.

I think what you mean to say the court system performs the revenge for you. There is no difference, check the definition. Even if it is performed in a vicarious manner. It is still revenge. The court acts as an extension of [/B[B]]the individual in this case. If it were the other way around, the court would simply be arbitrarily killing an individual on its own accord. Which would negate the purpose of the family, which would be even more infuriating (other than the simple fact the family were the only ones who feel the pain and anger towards the criminal).



No....I'm not avoiding the question. You just don't like my answer. We have a judicial system that is designed to control the "villagers and torches" scenario. And since we don't have a system like the the one you so badly want to make your points with, it's a moot point. Why not build your case on what we actually do in our process.

And yes there is some closure that is alotted to the family by knowing that the murderer paid the ulitmate price....that he will not escape and come after anyone else in their family.

Justice is not revenge. Sometimes the guilty go free in the justice system. The court is acting on behalf of "society" as a whole....not the family. If that were the case then every murderer on trial would be found guilty. Sometimes the justice is not meeted out as it should be. So you really have it wrong there.

[DeadFlagBlues]

No....I'm not avoiding the question. You just don't like my answer. We have a judicial system that is designed to control the "villagers and torches" scenario. And since we don't have a system like the the one you so badly want to make your points with, it's a moot point. Why not build your case on what we actually do in our process.

And yes there is some closure that is alotted to the family by knowing that the murderer paid the ulitmate price....that he will not escape and come after anyone else in their family.

Justice is not revenge. Sometimes the guilty go free in the justice system. The court is acting on behalf of "society" as a whole....not the family. If that were the case then every murderer on trial would be found guilty. Sometimes the justice is not meeted out as it should be. So you really have it wrong there.

I'm afraid I don't. Many families are not satisfied with the death penalty. They simply want to see the individual suffer. Lethal injection is not causing any kind of suffering whatsoever.

My point has been made and you are simply avoiding it. I'm providing you with a hypothetical scenario that you do want to ignore. If the family wants the criminal to suffer more and lethal injection is not satisfactory, doesn't the family reserve the right to complain?

So the answer is really: the family has no say so whatsoever within the case and it's results. It merely relies on a select few individuals to decide the fate of the criminal. So that directly relates to my original argument where the family is in all actuality not the chief concern within the case. They have no say in what happens to the individual. That would say that their opinion of whether or not he should live is irrelevant and the act of justice relies on a select few individuals.

My point is that the family may never be satisfied with the results or whether or not they feel justice is actually served. Not to mention the idea that justice has no defined quality or universal definition. We all want something different from the system and we all feel punishment is best suited in a certain fashion.

I'm afraid you misunderstood me in the case of revenge and the extension of the family (perhaps I did not explain well enough). When the actual death penalty is being acted upon, that is the extension of the family. Not necessarily the act of convicting the criminal.

[Ewok Droppings]

Hey FA - you haven't been around for awhile. I posted you a little video on this thread:

http://forums.comingsoon.net/showthread.php?t=48965&page=3

[DeadFlagBlues]

Hey FA - you haven't been around for awhile. I posted you a little video on this thread:

http://forums.comingsoon.net/showthread.php?t=48965&page=3

Thats great.

[Ewok Droppings]

Are you being sarcastic or did you really like it?

[DeadFlagBlues]

Are you being sarcastic or did you really like it?

I'm being serious. It was really funny.

[Andrey83]

Well, justice has, throughout history, been served with taking someone's life when it demands it. Simply removing them from society does not necessarily fulfill the demands of justice and studying them like a lab rat does nothing for justice. Jail isn't always an adequate form of punishment IMO.

First off, im not hot on the psychology thing thats been brought up here. But apart from that im not sure what your point is here. Our modern society is not even 100 years old so its irrelevant how justice has been performed "throughout history". Go 200 years back and you will see "justice" you wouldnt want to have today.

this isn't their justice, it's the victims

"the victims justice" is more a mob justice. The mob (in this case its only the parents/family or something like that) wants the person dead, therefor justice says we should kill the person. That has nothing to do with justice. Thats the mob speaking. Justice is about serving society, not the mob.

Surely you must agree?

[Ewok Droppings]

First off, im not hot on the psychology thing thats been brought up here. But apart from that im not sure what your point is here. Our modern society is not even 100 years old so its irrelevant how justice has been performed "throughout history". Go 200 years back and you will see "justice" you wouldnt want to have today.



"the victims justice" is more a mob justice. The mob (in this case its only the parents/family or something like that) wants the person dead, therefor justice says we should kill the person. That has nothing to do with justice. Thats the mob speaking. Justice is about serving society, not the mob.

Surely you must agree?

No, actually I don't agree with either of your replies. :)

1) We can't discredit history - saying it was simply brutal and to forget past justice is silly. Why don't we just throw away the constitution in the U.S. by that logic? It was written a long time ago and isn't really applicable in our 100 year old society. Sorry, I just don't think this argument holds any weight.

2) Justice is for the victims and for society - to call it a mob justice if it's for the victims is to degrade what's owed to the victims. You simply can't take them out of the equation.

[Andrey83]

No, actually I don't agree with either of your replies. :)

1) We can't discredit history - saying it was simply brutal and to forget past justice is silly. Why don't we just throw away the constitution in the U.S. by that logic? It was written a long time ago and isn't really applicable in our 100 year old society. Sorry, I just don't think this argument holds any weight.

2) Justice is for the victims and for society - to call it a mob justice if it's for the victims is to degrade what's owed to the victims. You simply can't take them out of the equation.

1) True. I guess my point is more fitting when it comes to death penalty, i agree. And I didnt meen to discredit history, but there isnt any reason to use public executions on town square as presedens today ;) I see your point though.

2) I call it mob, not as a degradation, but as a description of a phenomenon. A person gets killed. The least suited to "decide" the penalty of the criminal is the victims closest. They are emotionally close and what you get is revenge. Not justice. Thats why I called it mob, and in the context you gave, it sure is.

[Ramplate]

Well, I will admit you can not control a person's life because that would be a heavy violation of Kantian ethics as well as resorting to an authoritarian system. But the point here is that with the means of regulation within a prison system (this can be observed and is rather obvious) we can control the person to that extent. There will always be individuals breaking the law. But the only way to help deter this is for stricter educational systems (much like what Cuba currently has -- but not to the harsh extent of theirs). Not to say education as a concrete means of deterrence, but it would most likely help. As well as furthering our knowledge of individuals -- who are delusional/and or disturbed -- whereas, we develop entirely new concepts.

Through this system I believe we can safely reach an alternative. I don't mean to imply it is full-proof, because it isn't. But like any developing theory there are problems that will arise as well as negative by-products. As Ewok Droppings said, we are indeed running in circles here.

I do agree that we must help those who can be helped with counciling and treatment - but there are those few who are not redeemable - and the worst of those who commit callous and heinous acts of violence are the only ones I am talking about really. :)

[Ewok Droppings]

I call it mob, not as a degradation, but as a description of a phenomenon. A person gets killed. The least suited to "decide" the penalty of the criminal is the victims closest. They are emotionally close and what you get is revenge. Not justice. Thats why I called it mob, and in the context you gave, it sure is.

But the difference is that the family is not the ones handing down sentences. In this case, the law decides, due to a range of factors, what the sentence will/should be. If it was simply "throw them to the victim's family for punishment" type of a situation, then I could see your point, but it's not that way.

[Fighting American]

Hey FA - you haven't been around for awhile. I posted you a little video on this thread:

http://forums.comingsoon.net/showthread.php?t=48965&page=3

That guy sounded just like ol' George C.

[Ramplate]

yeah the person is found innocent or guilty by an impartial jury and the judge hands down the sentence accordingly. the judge (if he has a little leeway with the law) can hand down varying sentences based on the facts of the case and mitigating situations both for and against the death penalty - including the way the crime was carried out - and the impact statements of both sides of the case (that's as close as the victim's family ever gets to the decision)

[DeadFlagBlues]

I do agree that we must help those who can be helped with counciling and treatment - but there are those few who are not redeemable - and the worst of those who commit callous and heinous acts of violence are the only ones I am talking about really. :)

Well, again we are talking about making judgments about individuals that simply can never be fully proven. That is like saying,"this individual will commit a horrible act tomorrow if we let him go". We're pretending we can see what this individual will do which is impossible.

I'd argue that every individual is capable of changing. An individual's nature can be redirected but, like we discussed earlier, every individual is different and the progression and methods taken will differ. It may take a lifetime to 'cure' an individual but I'd say its well worth it. Whether they will change or not, only time will tell. We can not. A psychologist can deem an individual 'cured', but this is essentially based off of improvement in certain faculties (and a concentration on the current state of the individual's mindset). But as I've stated change is not necessarily the purpose in experiments and studies. It is merely a by-product from which we can certainly be proud of. Rather than worrying so much for the criminal in custody, we worry about deterring future crimes (that is not to imply we should simply give up hope and eliminate him, though).

[Ramplate]

Well, again we are talking about making judgments about individuals that simply can never be fully proven. That is like saying,"this individual will commit a horrible act tomorrow if we let him go". We're pretending we can see what this individual will do which is impossible.

but there again I think we have to look at the degree to which this person went out of their way to commit such crimes - how cruel they were - and how often they repeated such activity - becase that is a darn good indicator of a person who is not going to change for the better.

[DeadFlagBlues]

but there again I think we have to look at the degree to which this person went out of their way to commit such crimes - how cruel they were - and how often they repeated such activity - becase that is a darn good indicator of a person who is not going to change for the better.

I'd agree to that extent. The degree of the murder is always a factor. Which is why I believe that these more violent, and much more disturbed murderers should be studied more extensively than in other cases.

But the main point is that we can never fully know if these murderers will commit another crime if they are set free or not. We can only make very presumptuous opinions based on history or in situations like in psychiatric wards where an individual's disturbed faculties have noticeably improved. So that is where the big problem lies.

[Andrey83]

But the difference is that the family is not the ones handing down sentences. In this case, the law decides, due to a range of factors, what the sentence will/should be. If it was simply "throw them to the victim's family for punishment" type of a situation, then I could see your point, but it's not that way.


Obviously I know how a sentence is decided :P

What I was debating was the relevance of your comments about family etc. I made the case that it was irrelevant seeing as its basically the mob.

your idea of simply removing their civil liberties may not be enough in the eyes of the victims

Irrelevant imo. That was my point :)

[Ewok Droppings]

So you think the families don't matter at all? If that's the case, why do you think the judge allows the victim's families time to make comments and speak before sentencing? Although they don't have the power to hand down sentences, the families are heavily considered by the courts when sentencing. It's a combination of legal guidelines and justice for the families and community.

[Andrey83]

So you think the families don't matter at all? If that's the case, why do you think the judge allows the victim's families time to make comments and speak before sentencing? Although they don't have the power to hand down sentences, the families are heavily considered by the courts when sentencing. It's a combination of legal guidelines and justice for the families and community.

Oh dont get me wrong. The families matter of cource - but not in the legal system. Sorry they just dont. The legal system is based on law, not emotion.

Why the families are allowed to speak? Some form of tradition i guess.

Also arent you making a hell of an assumption when you say that a jury heavily considers what the family says? The family wasnt even present at the crime (unless they are witnesses) and thus their statement shouldnt have any weight. (well, you said "court", but as far as i know you, just as we do, have a jury system in the us)

Unless you want a legal system based on emotion instead of law?

[Tolkien]

So far, the arguments have thankfully been civil between us. But it's just the five of us in here sharing our same views back and forth with no real agreement process or change of heart. We all agree in our own opinions and (respectfully) disagree with each others. Well, no, it's more like one side against the other. But the point is, though our opinions are all being well shared between one and other, our views and our minds are not going to change about this matter in the least. At least, not through an internet message board. I am happy though, that we are at least being civil about the debate and are at least getting to know what the otherside is thinking when it comes to strong stances, like the argument over death penalties. I'd like to bow myself out of this conversation since I have already shared all of my views on the matter and for learning new things about how the otherside sees things. Thanks to all for the fun debate, and I hope to get into it sometime soon with you guys over something new.

-- Peace. :)

[Ramplate]

yeah, it's been interesting

[DeadFlagBlues]

yeah, it's been interesting

Indeed it has.

[Andrey83]

Agree Tolkien. Its easy to get carried away with subjects like this. Parhaps especially when you are used to general concensus against the death penalty (here in Norway).

I doubt I, or anyone else, will change anyones mind in here hehe :)

[Ewok Droppings]

Also arent you making a hell of an assumption when you say that a jury heavily considers what the family says? The family wasnt even present at the crime (unless they are witnesses) and thus their statement shouldnt have any weight.

It's the judge that allows the family to speak and weighs that in with his/her sentencing decision often. Emotions and trauma to the family are considered and shouldn't be left out. It's important, not just tradition.

[JokerNick]

I think it all depends really....

the death penalty can be a double edged sword... if you got someone like Osama Bin Ladin, who gets caught... do you kill him? and make him a matyr? don't know....

someone like Jeffrey Dalmer or Bundy... IDK... I guess if I was in teh victims family shoes, I'd like to see them dead... but, I guess I always thought prison was meant to be not a punishment, but a place where poeple go so they don't harm people or do wrong again....

now, someone like a pedaphile, I would like to see them castrated... cut their ***** off... some goes for rapist.... balls are off... if your going to use that as a weapon, take the waepon away (frank miller)

[JokerNick]

why is the word *d!ck* banned, but penis or cum, or hair pussy lips not?

[Ewok Droppings]

Thanks for pointing that out.

[JokerNick]

nm

[Ramplate]

I think it all depends really....

the death penalty can be a double edged sword... if you got someone like Osama Bin Ladin, who gets caught... do you kill him? and make him a matyr? don't know....

someone like Jeffrey Dalmer or Bundy... IDK... I guess if I was in teh victims family shoes, I'd like to see them dead... but, I guess I always thought prison was meant to be not a punishment, but a place where poeple go so they don't harm people or do wrong again....

now, someone like a pedaphile, I would like to see them castrated... cut their ***** off... some goes for rapist.... balls are off... if your going to use that as a weapon, take the waepon away (frank miller)

New points so I thought I'd post :)

Yeah that Matyr thing is kind of tricky - there was one terrorist that they didn't sentence to death - and he didn't think he could get a fair trial - he went off the deep end trying to become a matyr during his trial. The jury took into account his upbringing and "brain washing" if you can call it that and sentenced him to life. He immediately turned around and asked for another trial knowing he was wrong about getting a fair one, but he'd already pleaded guilty so there are no more appeals for him when you do that.

Prison is a place to put people so they never harm someone else again - but how many prisons do we want to build? Prisons are overcrowded already. also how much land do we want to set aside for prisons? How big can existing prison sites be before they become unsafe? Releasing non violent offenders eases the situation but... it is not a complete solution either. And it is not (as my questions show) only a breakdown to money concerns that is in the balance.

Chemical Castration is a discussed option in some cases of rapists - the problem is that it does not take away the urges they go through.
Furthermore, take for example in ancient times the Eunuch. In some cases they were left to guard the harem while the sultan was away - but that only stopped them from having babies - it didn't stop a few of them from having sex with the harem in the absence of the ruler.:hehe:

[JokerNick]

what about actually cutting off their penis...

I know, I knwo, then we get into the topic of how tax payers have to pay for this...

[Ewok Droppings]

You seem to have an obsession with wieners today.

[Fighting American]

So far, the arguments have thankfully been civil between us. But it's just the five of us in here sharing our same views back and forth with no real agreement process or change of heart. We all agree in our own opinions and (respectfully) disagree with each others. Well, no, it's more like one side against the other. But the point is, though our opinions are all being well shared between one and other, our views and our minds are not going to change about this matter in the least. At least, not through an internet message board. I am happy though, that we are at least being civil about the debate and are at least getting to know what the otherside is thinking when it comes to strong stances, like the argument over death penalties. I'd like to bow myself out of this conversation since I have already shared all of my views on the matter and for learning new things about how the otherside sees things. Thanks to all for the fun debate, and I hope to get into it sometime soon with you guys over something new.

-- Peace. :)

Yes. I'm right. You're wrong. :rolleyes:

[Dogbert0228]

Death penalty = wrong. Killing people because they killed seems like fair punishment, but justice is not served in a moral sense. Killing just begets more killing. I don't care how much it costs or how many prisons we need to build, but just lock convicted murderers up for life with no chance of paroll. Plain and simple.

[Necross]

Yes. I'm right. You're wrong. :rolleyes:

Actually no, posting like that to someone who garciously bowed out of an arguement is very arrogant.

[Steve from Indy]

Actually no, posting like that to someone who graciously bowed out of an argument is very arrogant.

Save your breath, and don't start an argument with him. He either can't, or won't admit any fault.

[Ewok Droppings]

Death penalty = wrong. Killing people because they killed seems like fair punishment, but justice is not served in a moral sense. Killing just begets more killing. I don't care how much it costs or how many prisons we need to build, but just lock convicted murderers up for life with no chance of paroll. Plain and simple.

Well, I'm a devout Christian and I don't think it's morally wrong. That's your opinion.

[Steve from Indy]

Well, I'm a devout Christian and I don't think it's morally wrong. That's your opinion.

Um...don't take this the wrong way, but I thought you are a Mormon. Don't Mormons believe differently than Christians? Or am I confused. http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/konfus/c010.gif

*Edit*

Okay, did some quick research. Looks like you basically agree with most Christians, but just add your own special revelation type deal. That's kinda what I was thinking, but I didn't know you were as close to what most Christians believe as what you are. Do I have that right?