Capital Punishment with assigned sides
#16
Posted 23 October 2007 - 07:43 PM
#17
Posted 23 October 2007 - 07:47 PM
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#18
Posted 23 October 2007 - 08:32 PM
Barend, if you want to join in, the Sharpie says you're against the death penalty.
#19
Posted 23 October 2007 - 08:59 PM
which I am.
I believe in street justice mang!
I should be allowed to murder anyone who ques across an intersection.
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)
#20
Posted 24 October 2007 - 05:03 PM
People for the death penalty (like ME) argue that the death penalty removes horrible murderers from the society while also making the punishment so severe that would-be murderers don't risk it, making less murders all around. However, taking the more modern non-religious view of things, a murderer would suffer much more in prison for his crimes than he would if given the sweet, sweet release of death. Plus, most would-be murderers that would receive the death penalty are too far gone to care about the possible consequences.
Capital punishment (which seems like such a WEAK term for the death penalty that it probably isn't and I look like an idiot right now) would also deny the right of clearly insane but treatable people to recieve treatment. The thing is, we have the insanity defense. The thing next to that thing is, a court isn't perfect, sometimes not all the evidence is given, or there are cool twists like in those Law and Order shows. In which case, the defendant would be offed, and new evidence exonerating the person from responsibility could come up after this happens, potentially meaning the person was screwed by time.
That was a pretty weak response, but there you go.
We carry a harpoon
But there ain't no whales so we tell tall tales
And sing a whaling tune
#21
Posted 24 October 2007 - 06:58 PM
The issue is deterrence. If the death penalty deters murder, than we're saving lives by enforcing it. If applying it to lesser crimes would increase the likelihod of those crimes plus murder, then we should not apply it there (hence the exception of rape as a Capital crime). By this reasoning, and considering that the goal is to prevent murder, the death penalty should be enforced only to deter murder. All other crimes should have incarceration penalties.
#22
Posted 25 October 2007 - 08:15 PM
Even if executions do keep murder rates low, that sort of ends-justify-their-means mentality can't (well, shouldn't) exist in government anyway. Imagine if the army had just marched in and wiped out the original community to have AIDS. A lot of lives would have been saved, but there would have rightfully been an outrage because the government can't and shouldn't decide the worth of a life just like that. Even though criminals forfeit their rights, the right to life is in the Declaration of Independence, for cryin' out loud. (Although you're Canadian, so I guess your government doesn't have any restrictions about killing you. )
#23
Posted 25 October 2007 - 09:21 PM
#24
Posted 25 October 2007 - 11:16 PM
Is the distinction really that big? If people are going to die, shouldn't the goal be to reduce the number? I guess that's another debate.
According to Wikipedia, murder per capita in the US is still 2.5 times higher than in Canada, so someone in the US must be doing something wrong. What causes murder is a complex issue, and it depends on a number of factors like income, race, even temperature. What your argument boils down to is that you have a graph, and while you have correlation, I don't see the causation.
Life is important, and the government can try all it likes, but it will never have the right or maybe even the competence to decide who lives and who dies. Some things are too big for white men in tophats and powdered wigs to decide. There have been so many cases of someone getting wrongly executed, and what can you do then? Apologize?
#27
Posted 26 October 2007 - 11:25 AM
#28
Posted 26 October 2007 - 03:21 PM
Highlighted in bold: I am getting mixed messages from these two statements.
I am just putting a point down about the economical side like how you said about charging for a "calender but bigger" for the board.
Sorry. I think it is rude for you to attempt to control me by going back over your statement.
Okay I done an advantage towards it not in the direct favour of people.
The unfortunately thing is that people can wrongfully be prosecuted.
If they want to do an eye for an eye they must have absolutely proof.
To me it goes a lot deeper than deciding to have capital punishment or not.
It will still get used by people who are economically affected by the capitalist society.
Joke: I wouldn't want to flip coins for people in a capital because what good is that going to do? Nothing. They have to flip their own coins or let others in control do it for them depending on their choices.
This post has been edited by Deepsycher: 26 October 2007 - 03:39 PM
#29
Posted 26 October 2007 - 03:45 PM
I think.