Death Sentence, A Terminal Solution


Ad: Buy Girls Und Panzer Merch from Play Asia!

Bold

-kenja sama
Retired
The usual rules
Here is another of my renowned intellectual discussion threads. Has always, any opinion is fair game has long has you support it with arguments. Normal forum rules also apply. This means stay respectful of others people/ideas and don't use abusive language.

====
Here is the question

Each country in the world has some legal system to protect the sociaty and its members. The specific laws vary from place to place, but essentially the intent is always the protection of a state of rights where people can live their daily life in a secure and safe environment.

It is also true that each sociaty has always had some highly violent and disturbing people who were a threat to others. Some countries decided that these individuals are too dangerous too be released back into society and are using the death sentence to make sure these people are no longer a risk. The death senstence is usally reserved for violent crimes like murder. The question is wether it is a good idea to use such a sentence.

For reference:
Some USA states use the death sentence.
Canada still has it in it's laws when someone kills a policeman on duty but it has not been used for over 50 years.
Portugal does not use death sentence.
Australia no longer has it (since 1985)
France no longer has it (since 1981).
Chine, Singapour and Viêt-Nam all curently use the death sentence.

Althought it is sometimes true that some people cannot be changed there is one big flaw with the death sentence. This flaw is actually the same as the advantage the death sentence has. It is permanent.

The advantage with such a permanent solution is that the "problem" is definatly resolved, it does not cost money to maintain (like keeping someone in prison for life) and there is no chance of excape where the person could kill again.

The big problem with being permanent is : what if you make a mistake? The justice system is not perfect. Some people are wrongfully accused and condemned and a few years later are found not guilty. We can try to minimize these kind of events, but it is impossible to have a perfect sytem where no mistake are made ever.

For this last reasons, I would say the deat sentence is, at first look, an intersting solution to extremem cases, but the dangers of killing the wrong person makes the solution ethically wrong. For this reason, I do not think such a sentence should be used.
 
QUOTE It is also true that each sociaty has always had some highly violent and disturbing people who were a thread to others.
happy.gif



I agree that although it's an attractive solution, especially if it's something so terrible the mourners contain a lot of hate toward the criminal, but you can't push aside the possibility of human error.

Everyone in Canada should know the case of Steven Truscott. He should've been dead decades ago, but wasn't killed. And today he is still fighting for his innocence. He's maintained since about 1960 that he never raped or killed Lynn Harper. They're still having trials about it, and there is evidence being brought to light that the trial wasn't fair and he probably would never have been convicted today based on the evidence from 1959.

Sure it's one case, but it's also one life. And it's a good example of human error.
 
ill give u my short answer since i have to get ready for school soon

the Death Sentence isnt a good idea if not just hypocritical all together, as u said there are problems with if ur killing the right person, but also the thing that gets me is, a person kills another person or rape and the only thing u can do to him is kill him in return? that really just makes u just as a killer as he is, ur no longer "better" then him u both kill for your own means or for others, as for a country. i also dont like the death sentence cause it cost lots a money more then most people think. so its really not helping all that much when it comes to taxes. one last thing i will mention is the fact lots of black males are put in jail if not sentence to death way more then most others. i cant suppport that, i mean a black male for robbing a person for like 50 dollors can get jail time pass 20 30 years but a rich man who steals millions can get off with a year if that. in order to stop the reason to have the death sentence or to slow down murder and crime u need to start at the source, where they grew up


lastly i understand about revenge and w/e and u wanting to kill a person for hurting u, but when it comes to the death sentence the person doing the killing isnt the family of the victim but the country killing the murder and in some cases the family doesnt even want the sentence to happon.
 
In my opinion, Death Sentence is really really wrong since people have been given life from god, why do other people intend to sentence them with death? even though they did a wrong thing or did a crime that against the law. people arent supposed to kill people. Im pretty sure those people who did a crime against the law somehow, they still have a small chance that they can change.

I guess the better thing to do is give them a chance even though some people intend not to change, im pretty sure they can change if they tried hard enough and they are willing to change. If they cant change i know they might still do the crimes they commited once....but its better to let them go and let god do the punishment.... well thats my opinion.
 
In my expirence, some people simply have to die to keep them from killing. While it is true that some to most folk feel remorse for for doing wrong things, there are those that would go out of their way to make others suffer for no reason.

A friend of mine was attacked some time ago (a couple years) and he killed him to protect him. It was in self defense and he knew that it was a kill or be killed situation but he still felt remorse for doing such a thing.

Also one of my bro's is a marine that hears stories from his buddies on how a lot of terrorists would kill as many people as possible because they believe something different. If those kinds of folk came to after doing such things without feeling remorse, how would you deal with those kinds of people? If it was direct situation with murder, rape, hate in general, how would you feel toward that afterwards?

It's hard to give a well educated answer without sounding rambling i guess.
I feel that a death sentence isn't for everyone, but it is a necessary evil. (if you believe in necessary evils)
 
it's hard for me to understand how such a christian country like the US still apply and defend the death sentence. what part of "thou shalt not kill" do they not understand? why are they allowed to decide when someone's life is to be finished? who are they to do such a thing?

my reasons for not agreeing with it are the same as most of you guys', so i won't say it all over again.

QUOTE (Byproduct)A friend of mine was attacked some time ago (a couple years) and he killed him to protect him. It was in self defense and he knew that it was a kill or be killed situation but he still felt remorse for doing such a thing.
this, in my opinion, is a completely different situation. your friend didn't choose to end the attacker's life, he chose to continue his own life, right? those are different things..

killing should always be the very last option. before that, as a major punishment, life in prision is probably the most effective -- probably more effective than death sentence itself.
 
QUOTE before that, as a major punishment, life in prision is probably the most effective -- probably more effective than death sentence itself.
not really, locking a person up keeps them off the streets but they are still a burden, some one has to feed them clean them watch them, and that comes out of peoples wallets it cost losts of money to hold a person in jail for life. not to mention what does givng a person life really do anyway? they have no hope now of ever leaving, the only thing they may can look forward to is death, also if no one is there to like talk to the person and understand them that person might just sit there in jail getting madder untill he pops and kills another person, cause well he has nothing to hope for, and what if he runs free? then not only doesnt he not want to ever go back he might even kill just cause. so killing a person is wrong but is locking him up for life any more humane?
 
QUOTE (wittyfox @ Sep 01 2006, 11:18 AM)i also dont like the death sentence cause it cost lots a money more then most people think. so its really not helping all that much when it comes to taxes. You must be carefull with that statistic. Using the death sentence can be a lot cheaper (financially talking) than prison. For instance, a death sentence is costs close to nothing in China (they even send a bill to your family for the bullet they used). The statistic you are bringing up comes from the US and the reason why the price is so high is because of all the procedures around such a sentence. Basicly, it costs a lot to try to minimize the possibilities of errors. Not to kill someone.


QUOTE (Byproduct @ Sep 01 2006, 12:38 PM)In my expirence, some people simply have to die to keep them from killing. Preventing someone from killing can be achived wither by persuading that person he should not kill OR by not giving him the chance to do so. That is what prison is for. You don't get a lot of chances to kill while behind bars.



QUOTE (Byproduct @ Sep 01 2006, 12:38 PM)Also one of my bro's is a marine that hears stories from his buddies on how a lot of terrorists would kill as many people as possible because they believe something different. If those kinds of folk came to after doing such things without feeling remorse, how would you deal with those kinds of people? Be carefull not to confuse a murdered (trial under the criminal code) and a terrorist (who is trialed under either a military code of justice or special national security laws).


So lets not get away from the subject at hand, this thread is about common criminals as defined in the criminal code.


QUOTE (wittyfox @ Sep 01 2006, 04:18 PM)QUOTE before that, as a major punishment, life in prision is probably the most effective -- probably more effective than death sentence itself. not really, locking a person up keeps them off the streets but they are still a burden, some one has to feed them clean them watch them, and that comes out of peoples wallets it cost losts of money to hold a person in jail for life. not to mention what does givng a person life really do anyway? they have no hope now of ever leaving, the only thing they may can look forward to is death, ... Actually, an innocent man can also look forward to prooving his innocence. It all comes down to how can you be 100% sure, without ANY doubt (that means without even a resonnable doubt) that you truky have the guilty person?

Any sentence is carried out as long as "the person's guilt can be established with a reasonnable doubt". Meaning, it is acceptable to condem someone to prison even if there could be a doubt he was innocent if there are more proofs for than against it. The impact of such an act for a death sentence is a lot more drastic.
 
you always get a chance to set him free if you're wrong.. and i believe more people are more afraid of life in prision than of death, so it might prevent serious crimes better than the death penalty itself...

most of what i just said is arguable, though..
 
I don't like the death sentence. The criminals get away cheap with just a death sentence. Rather, what should be done is to chop off the criminals legs or arms. Make the criminal a cripple for the rest of his life. And even if the criminal was falsely judged they can just give him/her some money and he'll play along as happy as ever.
 
QUOTE (Bold @ Sep 01 2006, 02:40 PM) Be carefull not to confuse a murdered (trial under the criminal code) and a terrorist (who is trialed under either a military code of justice or special national security laws).
So lets not get away from the subject at hand, this thread is about common criminals as defined in the criminal code.

I was leaning/ranting toward the existance or non-existance of remorse to justify the death senetance. If there is remourse, then there's a chance the criminal shouldn't have to be "put down" but otherwise, well, you know my answer.
 
umm.. hey.. you want me to upload my report regarding the death sentence? lol... really, i researched about this moreover... and scored it into the OC times here ^.^.

but moreover, it's rather that the death sentence occurs over the trial of murder. In some cases, they're being more of a hypocrit rather than showing this so-called "justice." probably worse than war itself.
 
Yay, I finally got my little foldable keyboard working! That aside, the subject at hand.

I feel that when it comes to the death sentence human error is acceptable. We put ourselves in the way of human error every time we drive our car to work, ride a plane or a bus, merely going about our daily lives exposes us to innumerable hazards of human error. The very knowledge that you could be falsely accused would make you doubly sure to cover your ass. Human error is just that, it's human. Until our justice system is run by computers it will be a factor.
There have been statements along the lines of "how can you take a life that god gave?". I'm a soldier. This may affect my perspective but overe here in the sandbox, I'm constantly having attempts on my life by a people who beiive its their god given duty to not only take my life, but everone elses life that they don't agree with as well. What's to say they aren't right? they sure as hell think they are. You have to keep religion out of law. All it does is color the decisions you would make. If mr BillybobJoe was in the house the night his wife was murdered in their bed, and he had the weapon used on his person, than too bad, innocent or not he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Move on. If it were to happen to me, and I was unable to prove my innocence, sucks to be me.

Let's shift the conversation to the medical field. Mr.X the convict is sentenced to death, bad for him, but a lifesaver to Mr.Y who is in desperate need of a heart transplant. Organs from convicts save lives gentleman and ladies. In this way their lives can help others. In WW2 the gremans conducted many expiriments on convicted felons, most notably in the area of hypothermia that greatly furthered the knowledge and saved far more lives than were lost in the expirementation.

Then there is the physchological aspect to condsider. If you knew that you would be chopped up and peiced out to the organ donor market for soemthing as simple as stealing a car, then woud you? Hell no, neither would anyone else for that matter. Look at the history books ladies and gents. Every society that had "extreme" punishments for crime had a remarkably low rate for crime. That and their society were long lived as well.

So there you have it, much to the chagrin of the flagging little AAA battery running my porta-kb
 
QUOTE (Anime-Addict)Look at the history books ladies and gents. Every society that had "extreme" punishments for crime had a remarkably low rate for crime. That and their society were long lived as well.
but amazingly, the US's crime rate is still incredibly higher than Portugal's, which has neither the death penalty nor life in prision.. the maximum sentence is about 25-30 years. so is the death penalty really that effective? and when is an "extreme" punishment too extreme?

we have to draw a line somewhere, and my line is drawn with the death penalty on the "too extreme" side... i fully understand that your view is different though, both because of your job and your nationality (not to say that american people are insensitive or something like that.. it's just that if you grow with the death penalty in your country, i assume it's easier to accept it).
 
QUOTE (Anime-Addict @ Sep 03 2006, 03:10 AM)Then there is the physchological aspect to condsider. If you knew that you would be chopped up and peiced out to the organ donor market for soemthing as simple as stealing a car, then woud you? Hell no, neither would anyone else for that matter. Actually, many people would. Because tehre is always the "invulnerable factor". Speacilly when young, people easily hink "it can't happen to me, I am too good for that". Those people are simply lacking experience. Even if they know they could die, they donn't believe it could happen to them.

So having strong punishement is not really an effective deterent.

There is also another factor to remember. Most justice system are not centered around punishement. The main reasons for the condenation is not to punish the guilty person or to make the victim feel revenge. It is to protect sociaty from a potentially dangerous individual.


QUOTE (Anime-Addict @ Sep 03 2006, 03:10 AM)In WW2 the gremans conducted many expiriments on convicted felons, most notably in the area of hypothermia that greatly furthered the knowledge and saved far more lives than were lost in the expirementation. Hmm, I hope you are simply citing these experiments because you vaguely heard about them. Those so called experiments were carried out on people that got arrested for various reasons including resistance fighters and other people that were sent to concentrations camps. If you read about what exactly they were doing, you will see it was far from ethical science.
 
QUOTE (darkdog @ Sep 01 2006, 01:44 PM)it's hard for me to understand how such a christian country like the US still apply and defend the death sentence. what part of "thou shalt not kill" do they not understand? why are they allowed to decide when someone's life is to be finished? who are they to do such a thing?
Hmmmm. I understand the sentiment, but this is really not a correct interpretation. "Thou shalt not kill" is more appropriately rendered, "Thou shalt not murder." In Exodus 21, the very next chapter after the ten commandments is given, the death penalty is prescribed for murder (v. 12), for hitting one's parents (v. 13), for kidnapping (v. 14), and for dishonoring one's parents (v. 17).

Yup, hitting one's parents or doing anything to dishonor them got the death penalty! That was considered just as bad as murder and kidnapping.

Furthermore, Paul the apostle in Romans 13 urges the believers to good behavior because the state "does not bear the sword in vain. It is God's servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer." (v. 4)

So you need to be careful of this argument. The Bible clearly supports the death penalty.



QUOTE (darkdog @ Sep 03 2006, 06:32 AM)QUOTE (Anime-Addict)Look at the history books ladies and gents. Every society that had "extreme" punishments for crime had a remarkably low rate for crime. That and their society were long lived as well.
but amazingly, the US's crime rate is still incredibly higher than Portugal's, which has neither the death penalty nor life in prision.. the maximum sentence is about 25-30 years. so is the death penalty really that effective? and when is an "extreme" punishment too extreme?


I tend to agree with darkdog that the death penalty is not really a deterrent against crime. As for people being "long-lived", well there are a great many other factors other than the death penalty which factor into that. Many societies which have had extreme punishments for crime have had high rates of it nonetheless. It is incorrect to say that every society with the death penalty has a lower crime rate than those without it.

The US, for example, has much higher rates of crime than most other first-world nations who have eliminated the death penalty.

As a note, I am a Christian. However, upon much reflection, I have come to regard the death penalty as a barbaric and odious thing.

Even if we could assume the death penalty was a "deterrent", that would depend upon having a perfect justice system. Put to death someone who is not guilty, and you have committed a crime against that person. Being put to death by accident of a bad trial is just as permanent a result as is deliberate injustice and murder. Furthermore, we know we have some (thankfully not all) police officers who are little more than criminals themselves and who have planted evidence. Such revelations caused hundreds of cases in California to be dropped and hundreds of convictions were overturned.

So the justice system isn't perfect. Even if it was, we still shouldn't do it.

As I said, I am a Christian. The basic message of Christianity is redemption, not revenge. It is that justice fell on another, allowing mercy to be given to the guilty. The death penalty removes the idea of redemption from the justice system. I admit to being troubled by those who view justice as punitive or simply a way to segregate the dangerous from the rest of society. Somehow or another, those who are guilty of crimes need to be redeemed. Some have never had much of a chance not to do what they have done.

And even if many criminals cannot be redeemed, we still shouldn't have the death penalty. Are we better than they are, or not? If we are, then we should refrain from taking vengeance. If not, then we should remember that it may be but a twist of fate that has kept us from being in such circumstances that turn us in that direction. And yes, many people have been convicted of crimes they did not commit and were sentenced to death for those crimes. Some were exonerated only after they had been executed.

I see nothing worthwhile in the death penalty, nothing at all. I recognize its existence in the Scripture, but I remember that the people to whom it was given were tribal and barbarous. We do not have to be that way.

Regards,
 
thanks for the information regarding the bible's view on the death penalty.. i'm not a christian myself (i just had a christian education and then parted ways with religion), so i wouldn't know things in as much detail as you do. and it's great to know you don't follow the book blindly.. if only all religious people were like that
tongue.gif
 
Well, concerning faith -- faith isn't supposed to be blind, now is it? Faith is supposed to help enable one to see more clearly.

The Scriptures, as important as they are, were written in a cultural context that one ignores to his or her peril. Without context you are likely to be erratic in your interpretation and partial in your application. One of the most important things to ask is, "Why was the command given?"

I used to be a fundamentalist, and I understand what the dangers of a blind faith are, having had one at one time. Fundamentalism tends to take a reductionist view of the Scriptures, and tries to take a God Who is more than anyone could understand and put Him in a box.

Those who use the Scriptures to support capital punishment forget that God cannot be put in a box. Jesus was presented with a capital-punishment case and asked for his opinion. A woman had been taken in the act of adultery (the man somehow got away? We aren't told.). The Law called for her to be stoned (actually, it called for both the man and woman to be stoned!). But Jesus simply answered, "Let him that is without sin among you cast the first stone." When the accusers left, Jesus did not accuse her, but told her to "go, and sin no more."

The essence of Christianity is redemption, not retribution. That is why I cannot support capital punishment.

Others have noted that capital punishment is final and undoable. To take a life deliberately, not in self-defence (which I have not touched on), is something only God should do.

That is how I see it.

Regards,
 
Whether or not the death sentence is wrong (which is an arguement in ethics) is a little irrelevant in my eyes. I believe that the death penalty is a little silly because it defeats the purpose of punishment of a crime. Punishing someone for a crime is supposed to be part of a "rehabilitation" process, which is designed to pervent further transgressions. The arguement for the death penalty (then) is that people's pre-meditative fears will keep them from atrocious crimes. This is clearly not the case. Firstly, because those who do such crimes intentionally (premeditated and violent ect) are usually not considering ANY consequences. Furthermore, most people don't consider the law before doing crimes. They are usually ignorant of the law, break it by mistake, or have no choice but to break it.

On a side note, I feel as if the death penalty is almost allowing the criminals to escape their their punishment. (if you view the purpose of the law is to be vindictive) Spending years in prison is much more awful than a painless death, in my opinion.
 
QUOTE (windfinder @ Sep 04 2006, 09:55 PM)Punishing someone for a crime is supposed to be part of a "rehabilitation" process, which is designed to pervent further transgressions.
I wish I could agree with you. However, the high recidivism rate (almost 70%, IIRC) shows that "punishment" (i.e., incarceration), does not prevent further transgressions.

Nor is prison a deterrent to an increase in crime, either. The US has the largest inmate population in the world as a percentage of its population, and it is going to get a lot worse.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html


QUOTE (windfinder @ Sep 04 2006, 09:55 PM)The arguement for the death penalty (then) is that people's pre-meditative fears will keep them from atrocious crimes. This is clearly not the case. Firstly, because those who do such crimes intentionally (premeditated and violent ect) are usually not considering ANY consequences.

I fully agree with you here.


QUOTE (windfinder @ Sep 04 2006, 09:55 PM)Spending years in prison is much more awful than a painless death, in my opinion.

Again, I wish that were true. However, the statistics do not show that those who are going to prison agree with you.

This begs the question, then. What actually encourages real rehabilitation?

The practical answer is education. Studies on recidivism rates show that inmates who complete social, behavioral, and educational programs to give the inmate skills for life and living have significantly reduced rates of return. Unfortunately, with the "tough on crime" attitude (i.e., punish, don't coddle, take away hope) adopted in recent years, program spending has gone down and rates of return are going back up.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050321/aborn

Even the most basic tenets of behavioral modification theory tell us that it is not enough to create an aversion to something. You have to create a tendency toward something at the same time. There must be both positive and negative reinforcements. Mind you, I am not a behaviorist, but some elements of the theory are useful. In any case, rehabilitation is multifaceted.
 
Playasia - Play-Asia.com: Online Shopping for Digital Codes, Video Games, Toys, Music, Electronics & more
Back
Top