Capital Punishment: For or Against?

[kindaichi]

Capital Punishment, A punishment, or a crime itself?

For example, In 1984, a man named Gene Hathorn Jr. took a friend named James Lee Beathard to visit the Hathorn family. Hathorn's father, mother and brother ended up dead of shotgun blasts.
Hathorn and Beathard battled it out at a courtroom, pointing the fingers at each other, until finally, Beathard was convicted for the triple homicide, and was sentanced to death.
However, There was no physical evidence that connected him to the crime scene, or the crime itself. He had been put to jail and sentanced to death based on Hathorn's testiment.

Later, it was found that Hathorn was guilty of the crime, and then he himself was sentanced to death.

Beathard, an innocent man, had been put to death because of Capital Punishment, and would still be alive to this day had it not been for his early and unnecisary conviction, and capital punishment itself.

So guys, what do you think about capital punishment? Are you For it or against it?

Im against it, just because
1. i think that people would suffer more being in jail.
2. its possible that the person convicted was innocent, and he could eventually, when evidence was found that supported that he wasnt connected, or didnt do the crime, leave jail, instead of being put to death for crimes he did not commit.

So, What do you think?

 

[verty]

i think that people would suffer more being in jail.

Some people see that as a plus. I think life without parole is a form of slavery.

 

[GregA]

I think that the sort of life that some can lead even in jail isn't justified when you consider the lives that have been terminated because of them

I think a worse punishment for a crime such as murder, is not the termination of existence (death penalty) but relegation to a miserable one, and plenty of time to lament over it. By this I don't mean inlicting upon them horrific acts of torture...merely that you feed them just enough to keep them alive and offer them no other stimulus other than four bare walls that serve as their prison...no interaction with other inmates...no communication with the outside world...nothing that would serve as recreation...and for a considerable amount of time, no hope of the situation changing...also make sure that the rest of the world including any want to be scourges of society know what's in store for them (as long as you can catch them of course).

 

[verty]

So it's about revenge, Greg. Do you realize how dangerous that is?

I was just watching a documentary on World War 2 and they mentioned that as Hitler was advancing eastwards, in many towns in places like Lithuania, jews were rounded up and killed before the german forces got there.

Public revenge-lust must be withstood; revenge should form no part of dealing with criminals.

 

[SticksandStones]

Prison should be about rehibilitation, not revenge. I would hope society would have evolved beyond the need to settle scores, but it appears not.

 

[GregA]

I don't agree with taking a person's life be it for personal gain or for punishment. For that reason amongst others I am against the death penalty...however for me, making someone who was once alive forever not-alive for their own selfish reasons is an attrocity that should not be dealt with lightly

You may call it revenge...I call it removing people who have brought about the destruction of someone else's existence from society and ensuring that for a considerable length of time they have little more benefit from their own existence than the one which they thought it was their right to take away... I never said you could not make efforts to try and rehabilitate them at a later stage...I just don't see the virtue in allowing murderers any compensation for their lack of freedom until such time that they have probably come to realize that it is not an act they wish to commit again and would agree to re-pay society in some way or another (though the person(s) who were killed can never be un-killed).

 

[gunch]

Prison should be about rehibilitation, not revenge. I would hope society would have evolved beyond the need to settle scores, but it appears not.

Rehabilitation can't be the only reason, because prisoners serving a life sentence don't need to be rehabilitated (beyond what is required inside the prison). Rehabilitation might be the primary goal for many short sentences, but I also believe deterrence is important. In addition, sometimes prisoners are able to repay the society by doing community work.

I do however agree that revenge has no place in a modern society, and I don't believe it has.

 

[D H]

Prison should be about rehibilitation, not revenge. I would hope society would have evolved beyond the need to settle scores, but it appears not.

That is a liberal point of view, and one with which I disagree. Punishment is an integral part of the purpose of prison. Rehabilitation is necessary also, as we want former criminals to remain so upon release. Society should not want them to become criminals once again. Our prisons are failing in that regard.

With regard to the narrow question of the death penalty, my view is that the death penalty is the only appropriate way to address those who have irrevocably surrendered their humanity by committing a truly attrocious crime.

The problem with the death penalty is that mistakes are irrevocable. The OP describes one such mistake. The burden of proof needs to be much higher than 'beyond a reasonable doubt' in the case of the death penalty. There was no doubt that Hitler was responsible for the deaths of millions. Had Hitler been captured alive, it would have been a crime against humanity to let him live. Rehabilitate him? Never.

 

[verty]

Obviously there is a deterrence element but people try to use it to justify getting revenge, especially with emotive language like "they are getting away with it".

 

[devil-fire]

i don't like the idea of a function of government to ever involve killing someone. i don't like capital punishment for other reasons but this is the primary one

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I used to be a big supporter of capital punishment, but, revenge and deterrence issues aside, I no longer trust the justice system, or any system, or any government enough to concede the right to take a life as a form of punishment. To do so is insanity IMO. We all know the corruption potential of humans given power. We all know that people make mistakes. We all know that no system can be perfect.

 

[Apost8]

The principle concern of the criminal justice system is public safety (i.e. keeping killers off the street). The problem with the death penalty is that it really is not about public safety. Arguments that it is a deterrence or that it keeps dangerous criminals off the street are disingenuous. Capital punishment is about reprisal, and I do not support it.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The principle concern of the criminal justice system is public safety (i.e. keeping killers off the street).

Not justice?

 

[Apost8]

Not justice?

"Justice" is a very subjective term when you think about it. Justice is an ideal, and there are many varying philosophical arguments that attempt to define it. I realize that I am in the minority in opposing capital punishment, but to me, justice (in the context of crime and punishment) is the minimum amount of force necessary to ensure public safety.

 

[BobG]

Prison should be about rehibilitation, not revenge. I would hope society would have evolved beyond the need to settle scores, but it appears not.

You really think someone like http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/henry_lee_lucas/2.html ?

There's some sick people out there that are beyond rehabilitation. There's only two choices for them: keep them alive in a cage or execute them. Either one is good enough, but I don't see much point in keeping them alive. About the only real justification for not executing them is that the execution process winds up being more expensive than keeping them alive in a cage.

(Lucas is the answer to an interesting trivia question. Out of 152 death sentences reviewed by Bush as governor of Texas, Lucas is the only one that Bush ever commuted.)

 

[Anttech]

I realize that I am in the minority in opposing capital punishment, but to me, justice (in the context of crime and punishment) is the minimum amount of force necessary to ensure public safety.

You certainly arent in the minority by opposing capital punishment. The Majority of western/1st world, Democratic countries abolished this years ago. It is deemed barbaric, and counter productive. A judicial system in Europe at least, or European influenced nations, isn't supposed to be about revenge. Thats the cold hard logic...

 

[marlon]

Im against it, just because
1. i think that people would suffer more being in jail.

I can understand that and most people in Europe will agree with you. However, how about the fact that those inmates cost a lot to society. In the end prisoners are just parasites of society because they produce nothing, yet to need to be kept alive.

I don't see the value in making all this effort and that is why i support capital punishment for convicted murderers, (child) rapists, and other sick/lost people.

2. its possible that the person convicted was innocent, and he could eventually, when evidence was found that supported that he wasnt connected, or didnt do the crime, leave jail, instead of being put to death for crimes he did not commit.

So, What do you think?

Well, i again understand this, but what you state here is that one cannot entirely trust the judicial system. That is true, yet think you need to consider the majority of the cases where the conviction is correct !

Besides, putting somebody behind bars, in a cage, for the rest of his/her life is the same as killing somebody. Once you are in prison, you lose one of the most fundamental human rights : FREEDOM.

marlon

 

[Anttech]

Besides, putting somebody behind bars, in a cage, for the rest of his/her life is the same as killing somebody. Once you are in prison, you lose one of the most fundamental human rights : FREEDOM.

How on Earth is jailing someone and killing them the same thing?

When you kill someone they loose all their 'fundamental human rights' plus their life, and you punish anyone who cared for that person.

I don't see the value in making all this effort and that is why i support capital punishment for convicted murderers, (child) rapists, and other sick/lost people.

What about Mentally Ill people, they add no value to be kept alive either. So where does one stop? If someone is Sick, or Lost wouldn't it be better to cure that person? I am sure you don't mean we should execute all Mentally Ill people, or do you?

 

[Anttech]

I used to be a big supporter of capital punishment, but, revenge and deterrence issues aside,

How can we put these two aside?
Ivan what is your position on these two fundamental aspects of Capital Punishment. I presume you must think that they are null. Do you believe that CP does detere people?
Do you believe that revenge has a place in the context of a Justice system?

I ask these because you were for Capital Punishment, but now are not because you don't trust the justice system...

 

[marlon]

When you kill someone they loose all their 'fundamental human rights' plus their life,

Nope, you cannot lose something you don't have. You lose those right when you kill or rape women, children, men,...

and you punish anyone who cared for that person.

I don't care because the parents of a murdered child feel far worse.

Why do you defend such criminals. Why are you not talking about the feelings of the victims and their family, huh ?

What about Mentally Ill people, they add no value to be kept alive either. So where does one stop? If someone is Sick, or Lost wouldn't it be better to cure that person? I am sure you don't mean we should execute all Mentally Ill people, or do you?

Ofcourse i am not saying that. Actually, your line of reasoning in this case (and many others as well i noticed) is very cheap and childish. You don't need to insult my intelligence, Anttech. Anybody can see the difference between people with epilepsia or whatever and a rapist.

Even, a rapist should be trialed in ANY case, even if the guy/woman has a psychiatric history.

marlon

 

[Anttech]

Nope, you cannot lose something you don't have. You lose those right when you kill or rape women, children, men,...

Incorrect, logically and lawfully. You do not loose the right to live after you kill or rape.

I don't care because the parents of a murdered child feel far worse.

Why do you defend such criminals. Why are you not talking about the feelings of the victims and their family, huh ?

A) I am not defending Murders and rapist, I am defending a judicial system. A judicial system that isn't geared around revenge and efficiently disposing of 'parasites of society' by executing them.
B) How do you know or even gage the grief of a murder victim compared to family of someone who has been sentenced to death? There is no logical reasoning behind that statements just emotion.

The only use of Capital punishment is revenge, and as we all know the circle of violence isn't stopped by state sponsored execution.

Ofcourse i am not saying that. Actually, your line of reasoning in this case (and many others as well i noticed) is very cheap and childish. You don't need to insult my intelligence, Anttech. Anybody can see the difference between people with epilepsia or whatever and a rapist.

No Marlon, you need to specify what you mean, when you say we should execute 'sick/lost' people, the burden is on you to define what you mean, not me, and not anyone else. I am not going to dance to your tune, and try and second guess what you are saying. YOU need to tell us what you mean...

Anyway so going by your last post if someone is mentally ill and Murders/Rapes someone, we should cure them right?

 

[marlon]

Incorrect, logically and lawfully. You do not loose the right to live after you kill or rape.

The right to live is not a part of the judicial system that "stands on its own". There is always a context surrounding it. It is incorrect, logically and lawfully, to assign more value to the destiny of rapists than to the destiny of the victims.

A) I am not defending Murders and rapist, I am defending a judicial system. A judicial system that isn't geared around revenge and efficiently disposing of 'parasites of society' by executing them.

Nobody is asking you to do that. I know the judicial system very well. I am just sharing my personal opinion on capital punishment as the best solution for convicted murderers and other scum.

B) How do you know or even gage the grief of a murder victim compared to family of someone who has been sentenced to death? There is no logical reasoning behind that statements just emotion.

Absolutely NOT. I reply with these words because YOU started bringing in the words "and you punish anyone who cared for that person". Don't turn things around and respect the CONTEXT in which i replied. What i wanted to say is that we need to focus on the grief of the victims , NOT on the grief of the family of the killer.

Remember in this game we call life that no one said its fair.

Even your cheap logics and intellectual terror are not going to deny that, Anttech

The only use of Capital punishment is revenge, and as we all know the circle of violence isn't stopped by state sponsored execution.

Rubbish, the circle of violence can only be stopped by killing a killer. Each rape case is a circle of violence in itself. Rapists are NOT organised like terrorist organisations you know...

No Marlon, you need to specify what you mean, when you say we should execute 'sick/lost' people, the burden is on you to define what you mean, not me, and not anyone else.

But i clearly defined those terms i was using. Then you started again with childish replies like "ohh, so do you think we should also kill handicapped people because they are a burden to society". Even to those stupid answers i replied very clearly. So, what is your point, buddy ?

Anyway so going by your last post if someone is mentally ill and Murders/Rapes someone, we should cure them right?

NOT AT ALL. THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. Learn to read man. I said those peole need to be sentenced as well. A rapist needs to be punished IN every case.

marlon

 

[Apost8]

In the US, the legal system generally reserves death for those who've committed an "especially heinous" crime. How do you define "especially heinous?" What makes one crime "heinous" and another "especially" so? The use of such subjective language and the inherent inconsistency it introduces are one of the main reasons I oppose capital punishment.

In my opinion, the only reason the death penalty still exists in the US is that it isn't applied consistently. Take a look at the crime statistics from the US Dept. of Justice: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_01-01a.html"

If every murderer were executed, there would be roughly 15-16000 executions every year. Add ~95000 more if you want to execute rapists as well. I highly doubt the public could stomach the systematic execution of 100000+ people every year, no matter how heinous their crimes.

 

[Anttech]

The right to live is not a part of the judicial system that "stands on its own". There is always a context surrounding it. It is incorrect, logically and lawfully, to assign more value to the destiny of rapists than to the destiny of the victims.

I am not assigning any value, I just disagree with you that "you lose those right when you kill or rape women, children, men" because you dont, and its irrational to assert you do.

Nobody is asking you to do that. I know the judicial system very well. I am just sharing my personal opinion on capital punishment as the best solution for convicted murderers and other scum.

You state I am defending Murderers and rapist so I tell you what I am actually defending, I don't need an invitation and its within the context of this thread, but now nobody is asking about the judicial system or rather nobody is asking anyone to defend it? Make your mind up

What i wanted to say is that we need to focus on the grief of the victims , NOT on the grief of the family of the killer.

YOU didnt say that tho... I can't know what you mean unless you tell me

Remember in this game we call life that no one said its fair.
Even your cheap logics and intellectual terror are not going to deny that, Anttech

Thanks I love you too :!) want to stop the ad hom attacks now, you got your shot away? Do you feel better now?

Rubbish, the circle of violence can only be stopped by killing a killer. Each rape case is a circle of violence in itself. Rapists are NOT organised like terrorist organisations you know...

No that doesn't work, if it did we would have stopped killing each other. Revenge killing does not stop the circle of violence. Look at tribal warfair history to see that argument just doesn't hold any water at all. You kill my brother, I go after you, your brother goes after... someones father dies, his son grows up a product of his environment... circle isn't stopped, its magnified.

But i clearly defined those terms i was using. Then you started again with childish replies like "ohh, so do you think we should also kill handicapped people because they are a burden to society". Even to those stupid answers i replied very clearly. So, what is your point, buddy ?

My point is, that you need to define what you are talking about, because I won't do it for you. Yes I know the context, but I don't know you and thus I don't know your views... So Sick/Lost people can mean anything

NOT AT ALL. THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. Learn to read man. I said those peole need to be sentenced as well. A rapist needs to be punished IN every case.

No people need to be tried, and then if found guilty sentenced... You didnt answer my question again. What is your stance, you believe they should be executed, even if they are found to be mentally ill?

 

[marlon]

You state I am defending Murderers and rapist so I tell you what I am actually defending,

Seems to me you are just regurgitating the judicial system as it is. I know it's content and i dont' have to have it read back to me.

That is what i meant.

Make your mind up

I think my vision is very clear so stop shouting such superfluous remarks.

YOU didnt say that tho... I can't know what you mean unless you tell me

:rofl:

No that doesn't work, if it did we would have stopped killing each other.

Nope, this is a common misconception. Everey crazy child murderer is a case on itself. They are NOT related to one and other. That is why i wrote about the "circle of violence on itself". Just by not killing one rapist, you do NOT prevent another rape from happening. That is why i say : KILL AND CLEAN UP. I know it sounds hard but this is the only way. I never claimed that this method will exclude all future violence but at least we don't keep the sinners of the past that are living off honest people's backs. THAT IS THE POINT.

Revenge killing does not stop the circle of violence.

But this is NOT the intention. The crux is to get rid off the ballast of the past. I do NOT want soe rapist living off my tax money. This is a FU**ING outrage. Why is this so difficult to see, huh ?

Look at tribal warfair history to see that argument just doesn't hold any water at all.

:rofl:
Please, stop terrorising me intellectually. IT DOES NOT WORK. I am not a little child, you know.

Tell me, if someone rapes your sister, would you not want to kill him. Indulge into your natural behaviour. There is NOTHING wrong with it.

You kill my brother, I go after you, your brother goes after... someones father dies, his son grows up a product of his environment... circle isn't stopped, its magnified.

Again, one killing is not related to another. I kill your brother and some other dude kills some other dude's brother in France. BOTH OF THEM SHOULD BE PUNISHED.

My point is, that you need to define what you are talking about, because I won't do it for you.

I think it is very clear what we are talking about and i certainly won't ask YOU to define what I am talking about. Why do you keep saying this ?

Yes I know the context, but I don't know you and thus I don't know your views... So Sick/Lost people can mean anything

MY VIEW IS VERY CLEAR. Sick/lost people means rapists and murderers. People that commit the worst crimes which involves killing other human beings.

No people need to be tried, and then if found guilty sentenced...

Irrelevant. We are not talking about the entire judicial process but about the punishment specifically. Again, refrain from such cheap rethoric tactics.

You didnt answer my question again. What is your stance, you believe they should be executed, even if they are found to be mentally ill?

YES for the third TIME. Rapists should be executed irrespective of their psychiatric history if there would ever be one...

I already said this several times, man.

greets
marlon

 

[Anttech]

But this is NOT the intention. The crux is to get rid off the ballast of the past. I do NOT want soe rapist living off my tax money. This is a FU**ING outrage. Why is this so difficult to see, huh ?

Thats your crux?



http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~tonya/spring/cap/pro5.htm
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/dp/dp-cost.html

They don't just take them round the back of the court and pop a bullet in the back of their head. Sitting on Death Row costs a whole lot of greenbacks dude.

Anyway that was only America, I'll concede perhaps in some other countries it does turn out to be less expensive to kill criminals...

 

[Gokul43201]

You lose those right [the right to life] when you kill or rape women, children, men,...

Does this include statutory rape? How about reckless manslaughter? And what if, on the other hand, someone is guilty of several counts of attempted murder, none of which resulted in a death? How about someone who killed nobody, and didn't intend too either, but ended up deliberately smashing in the heads of a hundred people causing irreversible brain damage to all of them?

The problem lies in how ill-defined becomes the qualification for losing your right to life. There's at least a whit of an argument to be made for killing a killer. But what's the reasoning behind killing a rapist? Mostly, you lose your right to life, if a randomly selected jury thinks you should. Of course, this is in practice, rarely the case (countless appeals and other procedures often make executions more expensive for the state than life terms), but is true, in theory.

Capital punishment is simply a carry-over from age old traditions of public beheadings/hangings/lashings/mutilation that serve an emotional need of the public. There seems to be very little reasoning involved.

"Does the jury (legally influenced by tearful emotional appeals by relatives of the victim) think the criminal deserves to die for his crimes?"

"Yes we do!"

"Awrighty then!"

(Note that this doesn't even address the problem that the verdict against an executed felon can't be repealed)

 

[GregA]

As I stated before I don't really support the death sentence but I think that the cost (to the criminal) of being caught for a crime such as murder (or any crime at that) should by far out-reach their own profit and the cost to the victim.

Why would these freaks who take what they want despite the horrific consequences for others not commit (or even re-commit) given that for getting caught they will be treated well and need only fool a *nice* and forgiving society that they have changed and are not the opportunistic, vile, in-humane, monsters that they were once previously?

So long as a would be murderer knows that if he extinguishes/destroys the life of another human then society will take the moral high ground, and show him that in a modern society we have no need for such antiquated urges like revenge and punishment...choosing instead to try and change his ways after the event; then that murderer bent on taking the moral *low ground* and not having the same ideals as society will surely be less deterred from siezing the opportunity to rob some poor sod of his right to breathe than if he knew that the terrible consequences of getting caught would be such that he'd be wishing for death long before it came to him naturally...there is no need for inflicting terrible pain upon them. Do just enough to preserve their health and keep them in total isolation (with the exception of a few brief sessions to liase with those who would help mount an appeal on their behalf if it was justified) for a LONG and un-specified (to the convict) time...let not just them, but everyone who'd like to copy them know that killing (or raping etc..) people is a bad idea.

 

[marlon]

Thats your crux?



http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~tonya/spring/cap/pro5.htm
http://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/dp/dp-cost.html

They don't just take them round the back of the court and pop a bullet in the back of their head. Sitting on Death Row costs a whole lot of greenbacks dude.

Anyway that was only America, I'll concede perhaps in some other countries it does turn out to be less expensive to kill criminals...

I DON'T CARE, REALLY I DON'T. You can give me another 600 websites stating whatever it is you want to believe. Elementary economic calculus learns us all that getting rid off a rapist will cost much less to society than keeping him alife for the next 3 decades.

If there is only one thing wrong with deathrow, it is the fact that the execution does not occur fast enough.

It is THAT simple.

In conclusion : i really don't see what you are trying to say here.

greets

marlon, and a happy Sint Nikolaas (my patron saint) for tomorrow...lots of cholcolate if you have been good, otherwise it is the sack of "zwarte piet"

 

[marlon]

Does this include statutory rape?

YES

How about reckless manslaughter?

YES

And what if, on the other hand, someone is guilty of several counts of attempted murder, none of which resulted in a death?

If the intent to murder or rape is proven in a trial : YES

How about someone who killed nobody, and didn't intend too either, but ended up deliberately smashing in the heads of a hundred people causing irreversible brain damage to all of them?

Ok, here there is no clear cut answer, i must admit. But we need to be careful with these kinds of arguments because, who knows, next thing will be that accused rapists will claim they "did not intend to rape your child"

Again, such regulations are the exception, NOT THE RULE.

The problem lies in how ill-defined becomes the qualification for losing your right to life.

I firmly disagree with that. One can very properly and easily define which crimes need to be followed by capital punishment.

This might not be a pretty picture, i admit, but it is the most honest and effective one.

(countless appeals and other procedures often make executions more expensive for the state than life terms), but is true, in theory.

THAT is what we should be solving : speeding up capital punishment for rapists and murderers. We should be looking into that in stead of waisting our time with these fake "left wing" semi-ethical thoughts as to whether capital punishment is just or not. Such "superfluous luxury" wonderings are there to make us sleep well at night, yet just imagine for once that in the mean time YOUR child is being murdered.

You will want retaliation. Ofcourse you will want that because it is a pure natural reflex for which we should NOT be ashamed. This reaction is the first step towards easing the pain. We all know it, because these feelings pop up as soon as we hear such tragidies happening to other people that we care about.


marlon

 

[Anttech]

I DON'T CARE, REALLY I DON'T. You can give me another 600 websites stating whatever it is you want to believe. Elementary economic calculus learns us all that getting rid off a rapist will cost much less to society than keeping him alife for the next 3 decades.

But in the real world, in which we don't have the "Marlon" efficient system of killing murders and rapist on the spot without a retrial, or any appeal process it does actually cost a lot of money, more than life imprisonment... Hard to accept I know, but true.

THAT is what we should be solving : speeding up capital punishment for rapists and murderers. We should be looking into that in stead of waisting our time with these fake "left wing" semi-ethical thoughts as to whether capital punishment is just or not. Such "superfluous luxury" wonderings are there to make us sleep well at night, yet just imagine for once that in the mean time YOUR child is being murdered.

Stop being so emmotional, we are trying to have a logical debate, not some hands in the air theatrical nonsence. Try Marlon, I know you can do it.

You will want retaliation. Ofcourse you will want that because it is a pure natural reflex for which we should NOT be ashamed. This reaction is the first step towards easing the pain. We all know it, because these feelings pop up as soon as we hear such tragidies happening to other people that we care about.

The point is Marlon, some people don't want Retaliation, they want closure, some want to forgive the criminal, there is no 1 size fits all.

1 thing is fact tho, your views are in the minority, thankfully...

 

[marlon]

But in the real world, in which we don't have the "Marlon" efficient system of killing murders and rapist

LOL. Since i knew you were eventually going to come up with this line, let me tell you this : from the very beginning i stated very clearly that i just wanted to share my personal opinion. I know reality works in a different way, but we all know that. Sharing personal views is what this entire thread is about.

on the spot without a retrial, or any appeal process

LOL again. I also already stated that i was NOT talking about the entire judicial process, only about the punishment in itself for the case of rapists et al. Again, you take try to twist around my words to make up your own mind. It won't work, Anttech, Sorry...

it does actually cost a lot of money, more than life imprisonment... Hard to accept I know, but true.

This is untrue.

Stop being so emmotional, we are trying to have a logical debate, not some hands in the air theatrical nonsence. Try Marlon, I know you can do it.

Just check your first response to me (and also check how others reacted to my words) and try to make that same conclusion again.

The point is Marlon, some people don't want Retaliation, they want closure, some want to forgive the criminal,

Also untrue. Not wanting captial punishment does NOT equal forgiving a criminal. Besides, this is just your speculation and let me tell you : I DON'T BELIEVE ONE WORD OF IT (nor do YOU). If you would look at reality, my dear Anttech, you would know that most parents of which the children have been murdered do NOT want to forgive the criminal. Who the hell do you think you are. I actually find your immature words to be very insulting towards those people.

FORGIVENISS IS NOT THE SAME AS CLOSURE

there is no 1 size fits all.

Jee, thanks for revealing such revolutionary information...:roleyes:

1 thing is fact tho, your views are in the minority, thankfully...

That and the fact that it is cheaper to just get rid off criminals.

Anyhow, "whatever makes you sleep at night, man..."

Bye bye

marlon

 

[devil-fire]

i think there are a lot of people who commit murder and rape (or any crime for that matter) who could be rehabilitated. for example a person who was raised in an abusive home may not understand why it is unacceptible to be harmful to others, and if they understood this, they could become productive members of society.

the idea of "we shouldn't try to rehabilitate people into having a good life! they harmed someone and need to be punished in likeness for their actions" it held by many, many people and is not just limited to capital punishment.

 

[Anttech]

LOL. Since i knew you were eventually going to come up with this line, let me tell you this : from the very beginning i stated very clearly that i just wanted to share my personal opinion. I know reality works in a different way, but we all know that. Sharing personal views is what this entire thread is about.

Wow, is there any point in debating with a telepathic? Marlon this thread, before you totally derail it, is about the arguments for and against capital punishment. Not a thread revolving around your ego, and personal opinion.

You argument for capital punishment seems to be that you don't want to pay with your tax money to keep a criminal in prison, you would prefer the less expensive option, and have them killed on the spot if possible, without the option of a retrial in the light of new evidence, without the legal rights we are used to..

Now usually in a thread where we are debating for and against capital punishment, someone, like myself, would start picking holes in your argument. Thats usually how a thread like this works, I would then give my reasons as to why I am against capital punishment, Gokul43201 outlined quiet well a stance I would back.

LOL again. I also already stated that i was NOT talking about the entire judicial process, only about the punishment in itself for the case of rapists et al.

You can state that till you are blue in the face, yet when you make a remark like:

THAT is what we should be solving : speeding up capital punishment for rapists and murderers. We should be looking into that in stead of waisting our time with these fake "left wing" semi-ethical thoughts as to whether capital punishment is just or not. Such "superfluous luxury" wonderings are there to make us sleep well at night, yet just imagine for once that in the mean time YOUR child is being murdered.

You are damming the whole judicial system!

Also untrue. Not wanting captial punishment does NOT equal forgiving a criminal. Besides, this is just your speculation and let me tell you : I DON'T BELIEVE ONE WORD OF IT (nor do YOU). If you would look at reality, my dear Anttech, you would know that most parents of which the children have been murdered do NOT want to forgive the criminal. Who the hell do you think you are. I actually find your immature words to be very insulting towards those people.

Again, this thread isn't your own blog on "Why you are for capital punishment", There are > 3,000,000,000 people on earth, there are definitely people who want to forgive. I have seen it with my own eyes.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/02_february/14/truth.shtml

So its not 'speculation' I have documented evidence, that people find closure through forgiveness, that forgiveness wouldn't come about through rage and condemning the Murderers to instantaneous death. As for my words being immature and insulting, that wasnt my intention, it was to counter your ill thought out rant.

 

[Anttech]

I just saw this:

Does this include statutory rape?
YES

Marlon, so if a 16 year old boy has sex with his 15 year old Girlfriend, both who consented, yet the parents of the girl found out, and waved reg flags at the police for Statutory rape. The Boy is convicted, you want this boy to be killed!

here is the definition of Statutory rape, in case you didnt know what that was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape
This may be a better site for the definition:
http://www.umaine.edu/security/sexoffenses.htm
"# Statutory Rape - Nonforcible sexual intercourse with a person who is under the statutory age of consent. "