PDA

View Full Version : death penalty



peyote
25-08-2004, 15:37
here is what amnesty international has to say:

"The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent and has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments".

i fully agree. now imagine child executions. that's disgusting :mad:

stop child executions! (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-children-eng)

pengwn9
25-08-2004, 16:22
Ever hear of an American serial killer named Ted Bundy?

He was executed in the state of Florida for the sexual assault, kidnapping, and murder of a teen. He had murdered dozens of other women over a period of years.

You want to save this kind of person from the death penalty for what reason?

Kshisya
25-08-2004, 16:33
I fully agree with the definition too.

peng as for your comment. I second that some crimes are hard and impossible to justify. I don't like the fact that budgets are spent on ppl condemned to life sentence either. However I do beleive that death penalty can't be a solution or punishment as makes other ppl killers - not better.

In cases of the crimes like the one you described if it was upto me I would just isolate such criminals "in 4 walls" without supply of food or water and let them die.

Sidney Bliss
25-08-2004, 16:38
Originally posted by pengwn9
You want to save this kind of person from the death penalty for what reason?

Because they've been known to get the wrong man.

pengwn9
25-08-2004, 16:46
Nope, not that time. The mountains of evidence against him were absolutely overwhelming. He was pure human evil.

What should we save him for? Will he be rehabilitated into a law abiding tax paying citizen someday? Does he deserve a chance to redeem himself?

I think not. Good riddance. Adios. Goodbye. :wavey:

peyote
25-08-2004, 16:59
Originally posted by Sidney Bliss
Because they've been known to get the wrong man. i can sit back and relax when others do the fighting for me ;)
thanks sidney, u da man!
:D

and let's not get into the hypocrisies of our world... a man sends an army and produces a "collateral damage" (even semantics get their dose of hypocrisy) of thousands of civilians, women and children... do i want to save that man? i do. killing is wrong. humanity today agrees slavery is wrong. there will be one day when we all agree killing is also wrong. i know it's spelled over those god books but hypocrisy always rule. we kill based on those principles, even the principle of not killing. can irony get any better? maybe...

think of someone you love dearly on death row. then come back to me with your approval. you have to fall very low in the human scale to approve the killing of your loved one. well, i just suppose we should give the same treatment to all, not just your loved one. yeah, you may say i'm a dreamer... ha! but i'm not the only one ;)

the world is moving toward abolishment of the death penalty. a great improvement for the animal in us. i tell this to myself when everything else point to life-is-shit... and then again: life IS shit
:(

pengwn9
25-08-2004, 17:07
I'm all for peace and love, but surely you realize that there are some people on this earth so warped and twisted and evil that they cannot be changed, cannot be saved? They add only suffering and misery and danger to the rest of us.

What do you suggest be done with them? Keep them in jail for eternity? Provide them with housing and food and health care for 40 or 50 years untill they pass away peacefully?

Some people don't understand about giving peace a chance. And we shouldn't give them a break. Off with their heads!

Random
25-08-2004, 17:20
So Fred & Rose West ; Harold Shipman ; The Yorkshire Ripper; Ian Brady; Soham to name but a few English Serial Killers....

Plug 'em into the national grid lets stop pandering to this liberal - oh but they had a disturbed childhood b/s - they did wrong they got caught - plug em in

Soon stop all this nonsense of the criminal has rights too ....

I would agree that time past it was possible that mistakes could be made, but given forensic science is now much more advanced the chances of convicting the wrong person are somewhat diminished

peyote
25-08-2004, 17:23
Originally posted by pengwn9
What do you suggest be done with them? Keep them in jail for eternity? Provide them with housing and food and health care for 40 or 50 years untill they pass away peacefully? your tax dollars are wasted right and left, spent in the billions for a war. much less goes to health care and education and i don't see a revolution in the streets so i guess it can be ok to waste money to support life in prison.

peyote
25-08-2004, 17:24
Originally posted by Random
I would agree that time past it was possible that mistakes could be made, but given forensic science is now much more advanced the chances of convicting the wrong person are somewhat diminished if you do some research you'd be surprised how wrong your statement is, although very logical indeed.

sfjohns67
25-08-2004, 17:26
Originally posted by peyote
think of someone you love dearly on death row. then come back to me with your approval. you have to fall very low in the human scale to approve the killing of your loved one. Think of being the father of the daughter murdered by that same guy on death row and ask yourself that same question.

Unless I were allowed to be the one wrapping my hands around the windpipe of the sonofabitch who murdered one of my loved ones, I'm personally against the death penalty. Not because I think it's inhumane etc., but because I consider it much more cruel that a murderer (and we're talking the most heinous, right?) spend the rest of his life behind bars than getting the quick and easy way out at the flip of an electric switch. Believe me, the places they put the most hardened and/or horrible criminals is not fit for a human, all my bullshit jokes about "three hots and a cot" to the side. I would feel quite warm inside knowing the man who murdered somebody I loved was coughing his lungs out one chunk at a time somewhere in a freezing, TB-infested Siberian prison.

pengwn9
25-08-2004, 17:28
Originally posted by peyote
so i guess it can be ok to waste money to support life in prison.

You don't sound very convinced. Having doubts, are you? Not really sure that saving these monsters for a rainy day is such a good idea?

Philosophy is theoretic. People are real. Some of them are irredeemibly bad. This is where theory and practice part company.

peyote
25-08-2004, 17:33
Originally posted by sfjohns67
Think of being the father of the daughter murdered by that same guy on death row and ask yourself that same questioni'd be locked in a psychiatric ward. i agree with the unbearable weight of such a dichotomy, but naturally i try to follow some principles whenever possible. yes, sometimes is simply not.

peyote
25-08-2004, 17:37
Originally posted by pengwn9
You don't sound very convinced. Having doubts, are you? Not really sure that saving these monsters for a rainy day is such a good idea?

Philosophy is theoretic. People are real. Some of them are irredeemibly bad. This is where theory and practice part company. agreed. still against the death penalty. it's abolished in many countries and there are no revolutions so far. that's good enough for me.

Random
25-08-2004, 17:37
Originally posted by peyote
if you do some research you'd be surprised how wrong your statement is, although very logical indeed.

They never get it wrong on C.S.I. !!

I know - you know they do get it wrong - but if there is more than enough compelling evidence - fry em ....

peyote
25-08-2004, 17:44
Originally posted by Random
They never get it wrong on C.S.I. !!

I know - you know they do get it wrong - but if there is more than enough compelling evidence - fry em .... er, i don't eat meat, i smoke my vegetables ;)

Zephyr
25-08-2004, 19:58
I say keep the lyin' murderin' state out of it. Hypocritical bastards anyway. I'm for cowboy justice, I say this haveing shot a criminal in defense of my own life once. It took three years of my life and all that I had(400,000 $ +) to emerge.I would do it again in a hot second if me or mine were threatened.But to let the state handle it hah.

Halyavshik
25-08-2004, 20:05
Peng, did you know that it's more expensive tax dollar for tax dollar to put someone to death than it is to house them for whatever portion of their life remains ?

peyote
25-08-2004, 20:11
Originally posted by Zephyr
I say keep the lyin' murderin' state out of it. Hypocritical bastards anyway. i second that... :rolleyes: and i minute that too :D

Idiot Amin
27-08-2004, 11:43
Originally posted by pengwn9
I'm all for peace and love, but surely you realize that there are some people on this earth so warped and twisted and evil that they cannot be changed, cannot be saved?

Sidney sympathizes with such people for obvious reasons.

Sidney Bliss
27-08-2004, 12:22
:snoring: .....

If I was shacked up in a prison cell with you execution would come as a blessed release.

JeffK
27-08-2004, 13:20
The recidivism rate among felons who have served jail time is extremely high. The recidivism rate among those felons who earned the death penalty is 0.

Nuf said.

For example, the following from the US bureau of justice survey conducted in 1994. Old data, but the story doesn't get better as time goes by.

Among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 States in
1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years.

Within the first 6 months of their release,
29.9% of the 272,111 offenders were
rearrested for a felony or serious
misdemeanor.

Halyavshik
27-08-2004, 13:29
Originally posted by JeffK
The recidivism rate among felons who have served jail time is extremely high. The recidivism rate among those felons who earned the death penalty is 0.

Nuf said.

That's flawed logic since by those statistics you could arguably justify killing any inmate. Why not just save us all a bunch of tax dollars and zap everyone convicted of a felony ? That argument completely ignores the question of morality and whether or not the state/powers that be have the right to do so.

JeffK
27-08-2004, 13:41
Amanda, Not making a statement regarding morality or the right of the state to do it. I of course think that we do. I do not suggest that all felons be fried. It was simply in answer to someones earlier statement that the death penalty does not deter crime. Of course it does. That person will NEVER commit another crime. There are 32.5% of those arrested that can be saved, converted or whatever one wishes to call it. BUT, the hard facts show that society is truly better off without 67.5%. I think that a law like California's three strikes law offers some relief from repeat offenders, but should one have to kill three times before being taken off the street? The answers to this are not simple and likely will not be decided here. I think that the death penalty is a solution in some cases and should not be ruled out simply because it is distasteful.

koba65
06-09-2004, 05:44
Originally posted by peyote
think of someone you love dearly on death row. then come back to me with your approval. you have to fall very low in the human scale to approve the killing of your loved one. well, i just suppose we should give the same treatment to all, not just your loved one. yeah, you may say i'm a dreamer... ha! but i'm not the only one ;)

Think of someone you love dearly being repeatedly tortured, raped, mutilated and left to die by someone and then come back and tell us of how much love for humanity that you have that you would spare the bastard that did it.

Here's a real story for you:
I know someone (a former good friend) who, while tripping on acid, committed such a vile heinous act that he should have been fried. His girlfriend told him she was pregnant. He wanted to "see" for himself. He took a Bowie knife, slit her from her vagina to her chest. That wasn't enough for him - he had to dismember her, stab her over 150 times (the coroner gave up counting) and leave her by the bank of a river where her body suffered even more humiliation by being ravaged by wild animals. His sentence? Life in prison where he has access to cable tv, a gym, DRUGS, and gets to get out (in chains and escorted of course) every once and awhile when he has hearings or decides to sue the prison system for some frivilous reason (they all do it at great expense to the taxpayers). I knew him well, considered him a good friend, and I could push the button myself to rid society of him (he's not remorseful). His family? Could care less - that's part of the reason he turned out the way he did. The victim's family - DESTROYED. Mother of the girl killed herself and the father slipped away into alcholism - lost his job, his mind, etc. Part of their grief was the fact that the guy who took the life of their only child was able to carry on, albiet in prison, with the chance of parole after 20 years served (luckily he was turned down his first shot at parole 2 years ago). I guess if that was your daughter you'd be ok with the fact that this guy still draws a breath?

koba65
06-09-2004, 06:11
Originally posted by Amanda Huggenkiss
Peng, did you know that it's more expensive tax dollar for tax dollar to put someone to death than it is to house them for whatever portion of their life remains ?

That's because of the countless appeals they are allowed to submit. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to ensuring that the scum on death row are a.) definitely guilty, and b.) put to death. I haven't read/heard/known of too many victims' family members being against the death penalty. I have read of many who were anti-death penalty until one of their loved ones suffered at the hands of a monster...

Big Bugga
06-09-2004, 06:18
Personaly I find the solution simple. If in fact a person is found guilty of some evil act or another, at the close of the court proceedings, send said individual into a nice concrete room with the friends and loved ones of the person/persons lost. If the family/friends of the victims deem to let the person leave the room to spend the rest of their lives rotting in jail, so be it. If the come out asking for wetnaps and a squeegy that was their choice and for the ones left behind, justice was served to their satisfaction either way you look at it.

Bugga'

Matt Bury
06-09-2004, 13:29
Ok, you've all got some strong opinions on the subject, but are you asking the right questions?

Matt Bury
06-09-2004, 13:32
This is a debate that does the rounds again and again, in schools, universities, governments, bars, living rooms and parks.

Everyone seems to be divided into two camps, for or against, with very strong and valid moral arguments to their point of view.

Matt Bury
06-09-2004, 13:34
The truth is that there is no fundamental moral premise for or against the death penalty. There is no moral reason to execute or not to execute individuals who are an extreme danger to society.

Matt Bury
06-09-2004, 13:37
The statistics and studies show that the death penalty does not reduce the types of crimes to which it applies, in whatever country at whatever time.

Recidivist behaviour appears to be something which manifests itself from a very young age and continues despite everyone's best efforts at punishing, reforming or deterring the individuals.

Matt Bury
06-09-2004, 13:40
Even those who take the view of it being an illness or social disease have no cure or suggestions of how to deal with the problem.

Matt Bury
06-09-2004, 13:43
I think it's a matter of the majority deciding what the best line of action to take is in these situations, which is in most cases what happens. Some states/countries decide they're for it, some against it.

Matt Bury
06-09-2004, 13:48
The question, I think, is what kind of people do we want to be?

Do we see and eye for an eye as the answer? It's probably the most economical solution.

Or do we decide to remove such individuals from society so that they're no longer a danger to us?

Either way the end result is the same: We make the world a safer place to live in.

The result for the victims and their families and friends is somewhat different though, and I think those are the people who need our help and attention the most.

Matt Bury
06-09-2004, 13:50
I would love to hear the argument of how best to help the victims of such criminals more often. We already know how best to deal with the criminals.

koba65
06-09-2004, 18:27
Originally posted by Matt Bury
The statistics and studies show that the death penalty does not reduce the types of crimes to which it applies, in whatever country at whatever time.

It does eliminate any future crimes by the individual executed. I never bought into the "death penalty serves as a deterrent to crime" argument. It is the ultimate punishment for crimes that are so disgusting that the person who committed them should pay with his/her life.

kniga
06-09-2004, 20:48
Peyote,

Then you are against the death penalty for the terrorists who killed all the children in the school in Ossetia?

Halyavshik
07-09-2004, 10:48
Originally posted by JeffK
Amanda, Not making a statement regarding morality or the right of the state to do it. I of course think that we do. I do not suggest that all felons be fried. It was simply in answer to someones earlier statement that the death penalty does not deter crime.

Jeff, I understand your position, but you're using flawed logic to support it. That very same argument (that it deters one person from committing another crime) can be applied to ANY criminal: shop-lifters, jay-walkers, tax-avoiders, etc. Who draws the line of which criminals we want to stop ? You ? The State ? The victem's parents/relatives ? It's *inherently* a moral question because it's completely subjective.


Originally posted by Koba65
That's because of the countless appeals they are allowed to submit. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to ensuring that the scum on death row are a.) definitely guilty, and b.) put to death. I haven't read/heard/known of too many victims' family members being against the death penalty. I have read of many who were anti-death penalty until one of their loved ones suffered at the hands of a monster...

I understand, Koba, but if, as JeffK has tried to do, you logically try to justify it and ignore the moral questions, it's NOT more efficient or cheaper or more expediant.

You obviously have no qualms in regards to others answering the moral dilemna of whether we have the right to make such a decision. And on that point, it's impossible to debate. It links back to your personal beliefs and no one has the right to criticize that or tell you your wrong. I personally disagree, but that's neither really here nor there. And on that, the debate has to end, because it's opinion, and nothing more.

Sadie
07-09-2004, 12:12
These are people with broken psychology, probably brain damaged in a way, as I canít imagine a normal person convicting a murder. These are dogs, animals and no talks about humanís rights can be applicable to them whatsoever. Mad dogs have to be shooted off. Among those who vote agains death penalty the majority (in my beliefe) are those who have never faced a serious crime themselves, never been a victim, never lost their parents, kids, people whom they love etc. etc. Very many of them would have changed their minds I reckon.

Punishmen itself has another goal which is preventing all those potential criminals from making a wrong choice.

Take this tragedy with Osetia kids. It was a challenge for these dogs. They either die as Ďheroesí in a blockbuster or would be caught. If they are caught, what next? They would be either killed in jail (which I suppose happens pretty often and which I suppose they do not really expect) or be RELEASED by our government during the next negotiations with terrorists (which I suppose many of them actually count on) or simply will BUY their freedom (which is frequently happening, I am positive here). I would vote for a public execution of these so called ďpeopleĒ. I do believe it would stop many potentional volunteers from repeating such .. .. I donít even know how to call it. It could be both very impressive and edifying.

We are not ready to abolish death penalty. Maybe there will come a day, when the system of punishement execution is under a total controll, when there are all necessary conditions, when people are morally ready for it. But itís too early to talk about that.

And again, democratic games in human rights are completely inappropriate when the issue concernes wild animals. These are not just words, this is my honest beliefe. We HAVE to speak their language to withstand them as they donít speak any other.
By the way, happy to say that the punishment measures were significantly increased for terrorism in Russia this week, but very unhappy to say that still no death penalty included. I do believe the abolishement of the moratorium for the execution of death penalty in Russia would be reasonable under the circumstances.

85StonePolarBear
07-09-2004, 13:17
Originally posted by Sadie
These are people with broken psychology, probably brain damaged in a way, as I canít imagine a normal person convicting a murder. These are dogs, animals and no talks about humanís rights can be applicable to them whatsoever. Mad dogs have to be shooted off.

In some cases, you are right, and the real challenge might be to prevent such people from being born, or, more realistically, to determine just what kind of brain damage causes violent impulses and to treat it accordingly before 2 or more lives are ended as a result.

Sometimes, there may have been extenuating circumstances - the abused child or spouse who just can't take it anymore etc. Then, there is the responsibility of making sure the guilty party is 100,000% guilty - every justice system makes mistakes.

As for terrorists, these abominations worship and welcome death. The death penalty is no deterrent to them or to their deluded followers and admirers who see them as martyrs. The challenge is to root out terror cells before damage is done, and to stop them from garnering support among the people whose cause they supposedly serve.

In any case, I voted for the second option - but I consider crimes against humanity to include any indiscriminate murder of an innocent human being where there was clear intent and no extenuating circumstances (gangland murder, for instance, is no crime against humanity - it is a crime against inhumanity by inhumanity).

Ned Kelly
07-09-2004, 14:03
i don't support the death penalty because the idea that an innocent person could die from a shit court decision makes me shudder. that's the product of a sick society.

just to totally contradict myself, i'd have taken the equivalent number of relatives and clan members of the scum that took over the school and made it clear that a terrorist murder will be met with a relative's death.

85StonePolarBear
07-09-2004, 14:07
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
i don't support the death penalty because the idea that an innocent person could die from a shit court decision makes me shudder. that's the product of a sick society.

That is the quandary - how do you prevent **** court decisions from taking innocent lives? What standard of evidence is needed?

Ned Kelly
07-09-2004, 14:12
Originally posted by 85StonePolarBear
That is the quandary - how do you prevent **** court decisions from taking innocent lives?

you don't have a death penalty.

Sadie
07-09-2004, 14:18
Ned, which actually means that you allow sacrificing their relatives' lives, but the bastards themselves are untouchable?? I didn't get it.. Double standarts it's called.
I will be banned for extreme cruelty from the site probably, but I totally agree that during the negotiations, how about bringing these dogs back to senses warning that the same can happen to them, maybe it could stop them? What can stop them at all?

85StonePolarBear
07-09-2004, 14:21
Nothing can stop those who value death over life. I wonder whether mental illness plays a part in such deluded and perverse thinking, and, if so, whether some sort of treatment can be developed. Otherwise, it's get them before they get us - not death penalty for crimes committed (how in the world do you execute a suicide bomber?), but perhaps giving rewards to clan members and relatives for information leading to the arrest of those who are planning the next atrocity.

Ned Kelly
07-09-2004, 14:24
sadie, you'd be perfect for putin's pardons commission! ;) what i was referring to was trying to save the hostages' lives.

the "bastards" themselves, as you aptly describe them, wouldn't last long in a russian jail anyway i suspect.

Sadie
07-09-2004, 14:27
Originally posted by 85StonePolarBear
Nothing can stop those who value death over life.
you are wrong, you are wrong (to bear7654567)!
They do value their lives, otherwise they would blow themselves up. But they were changing clothes and running away like rats. And they do value their family. What is really amazing is that it considered to be an honor to a family in some countries when their son or daughter sacrifices his/her life taking the lives of their enemies with them.

ned, I have sent my ad to them and quoted some of my posts from this thread, and u know what? I am in!:p

85StonePolarBear
07-09-2004, 14:32
I see what you mean in terms of the present situation. I am improperly conflating suicide bombers with those abominable creatures responsible for Beslan. The former are subhuman; I have no words to describe the latter, not even words which have no place in civilised discourse. Yes, they were running like rabbits, and were they not even using children as human shields?

And, yes, there are those families in the Middle East who glorify the "sacrifice" of their suicide bomber spawn - of course said child was raised with perverse values to begin with.

85StonePolarBear
07-09-2004, 14:37
Originally posted by Sadie
you are wrong, you are wrong (to bear7654567)!


Now, will you stop with these exaggerated numbers before I am tempted to commit a capital crime myself (7654567 stone *14/2.205 = 48,600,425 kilograms) ;) ;) ;)! At least I don't have to wear a chain mail suit in order to get any sort of reading on the scale ;) ;) ;) (wondering if Sadie would support the death penalty for a polar bear who hugged the living daylights out of her, or whether she would pardon me now that she is on the commission?)

Sadie
07-09-2004, 14:38
two different types of the same shit, no need even to separate them

85StonePolarBear
07-09-2004, 14:40
The only difference being that one does not even have whatever it takes to sacrifice its own worthless life - therefore, negotiations, death penalty etc come into play. Suicide bombings can only be stopped by taking out those who sponsor the bombers.

peyote
08-09-2004, 14:22
Originally posted by kniga
Peyote,

Then you are against the death penalty for the terrorists who killed all the children in the school in Ossetia? kniga, i suppose you're just kidding me. i have not even one microgram of sympathy for those bastards. if you ask me they can burn them at the stake while the spanish inquisition reads them some bible crap. i'll offer my lighter ;)

my position regarding the death penalty is all about the innocent and nothing about those who deserve it, not to mention who is doing the killing... the government! ha! bless the lord!

kniga
08-09-2004, 15:36
Peyote,

I wasn't kidding. There is no half way here regarding the death penalty. You either have it or you don't. There is no guard against mistakes in any justice system. You appear to be like Ned, who seems to be for killing the animals who killed the children but against the death penalty in general. That is a barstool position and one easy to be pushed off from. Step up and be decisive: do we (society) execute such scum or not? Make a choice, not an equivocating excuse for straddling the fence.

Ned Kelly
08-09-2004, 15:47
ouch you old grouch! ;) i'm against the death penalty. nothing i wrote could be construed otherwise.

Sadie
08-09-2004, 15:55
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
ouch you old grouch! ;) i'm against the death penalty. nothing i wrote could be construed otherwise.
Bookie is right (as always ;))
Ned, maybe we shouldn't even use guns trying to catch them, for instance lasso could do pretty well too, huh? just to avoid the unneccessary losts in their ranks ..

Ned Kelly
08-09-2004, 15:57
gosudarstvo-loving rednecks....

85StonePolarBear
08-09-2004, 16:01
Originally posted by kniga
Peyote,

I wasn't kidding. There is no half way here regarding the death penalty.

At least one country has it only for crimes against humanity and terrorism. I would broaden the definition of crimes against humanity to include the slaying of more than one innocent person, or of even one innocent person in particularly disgusting circumstances showing a wanton disregard for life. I'm not sure that the lowlife who knocks off a liquor store and ends up killing the proprietor in a fight should be fried; such a "person" would deserve life without parole.

peyote
08-09-2004, 16:05
kniga,
i'm against the death penalty. period.

a society without death penalty is more humane than a society with death penalty. that's what i think. those countries which abolished the death penalty didn't do it to save the scum but to save the innocent. i support that 100%

regarding the terrorists we are in russia so they will be fried and that is fine with me. regarding the death penalty in russia, i hope one day they join the progressive countries of the world and won't have it either. i may be dead by then but it will happen. humanity, in spite of all evil, is moving foward and the death penalty one day will be sitting next to the inquisition. again, i know i'll be dead by then.

Graffiti
08-09-2004, 16:20
So strange ... I personally find life imprisonment to be much harder sentence than death penalty. I cannot think what could be more cruel than the rest of the life in prison.

Ned Kelly
08-09-2004, 16:38
my other point in opposing the death penalty is that you need to remove guns from ordinary people's hands. i'm not against a peron going hunting or farmers having them or whatever that makes reasonable sense. but i think the situation in the us is just insane and leads to a lot more violent crime and in turn the feeling that similar retribution, the death penalty, is needed.

then again i could be talking shite. ;)

85StonePolarBear
08-09-2004, 16:40
Then again, perhaps the correct punishment for criminals is exile to Australia :)

Seriously, though, few crimes are committed with licenced handguns, and it is only pockets of the US where there is a real gun culture.

Ned Kelly
08-09-2004, 16:43
Originally posted by 85StonePolarBear
Then again, perhaps the correct punishment for criminals is exile to Australia :)

indeed...we're the only country that can truly claim to having polished shit into chocolate!

kniga
08-09-2004, 17:50
Peyote,

You say, "kniga,
i'm against the death penalty. period."

And then in the next breath you say, "regarding the terrorists we are in russia so they will be fried and that is fine with me."

Peyote, you can't have it both ways, i.e., no death penalty in my country, but kill the bastards in another country.

Ned, your suspicion about what you are writing is correct.

peyote
08-09-2004, 19:30
kniga, no death penalty. if you or anyone wants to imply that this philosophy is in line with saving the terrorists, i have to say let's not forget the opposite is in line with killing the innocent. let's not use the latest events to support our causes. that sounds like a low blow to me, although i'm half deaf for too much rock 'n' roll.

peace.
;)

Ned Kelly
09-09-2004, 08:05
Originally posted by kniga
Ned, your suspicion about what you are writing is correct.

hate it when that happens...

koba65
09-09-2004, 08:25
Originally posted by Graffiti
So strange ... I personally find life imprisonment to be much harder sentence than death penalty. I cannot think what could be more cruel than the rest of the life in prison.

Humans can adapt to any condition and in some countries life in prison is a lot more comfy than life on the streets.

Sadie
09-09-2004, 09:12
Not in Russia though.
I've read some stuff on this matter, they say they pray to die as soon as possible. Those who are sentenced to the deprivation of freedom for life are served in the colonies of special regime which makes a huge difference. Even regular reformatory colonies can drive a man crazy, not to speak of these ďspecialĒ ones. Who knows what is more merciful in these cases.

85StonePolarBear
09-09-2004, 10:34
It is not a matter of what is more merciful. It is a matter of whether society wants to erase the murderer from its midst, or to make him suffer for the rest of his natural life. In some cases, such as terror, serial killing, or mass murder, I wonder if some type of slow, agonizing death is in order.

Matt Bury
09-09-2004, 12:48
Originally posted by koba65
It does eliminate any future crimes by the individual executed.

You're talking as if the alternative to the death penalty is to just let the criminal go free.

Imprisonment and internment in a mental hospital generally have the same effect on society as the death penalty.

Matt Bury
09-09-2004, 13:02
Originally posted by Sadie
These are people with broken psychology, probably brain damaged in a way, as I canít imagine a normal person convicting a murder. These are dogs, animals and no talks about humanís rights can be applicable to them whatsoever. Mad dogs have to be shooted off. Among those who vote agains death penalty the majority (in my beliefe) are those who have never faced a serious crime themselves, never been a victim, never lost their parents, kids, people whom they love etc. etc. Very many of them would have changed their minds I reckon.

Punishmen itself has another goal which is preventing all those potential criminals from making a wrong choice.

Take this tragedy with Osetia kids. It was a challenge for these dogs. They either die as Ďheroesí in a blockbuster or would be caught. If they are caught, what next? They would be either killed in jail (which I suppose happens pretty often and which I suppose they do not really expect) or be RELEASED by our government during the next negotiations with terrorists (which I suppose many of them actually count on) or simply will BUY their freedom (which is frequently happening, I am positive here). I would vote for a public execution of these so called ďpeopleĒ. I do believe it would stop many potentional volunteers from repeating such .. .. I donít even know how to call it. It could be both very impressive and edifying.

We are not ready to abolish death penalty. Maybe there will come a day, when the system of punishement execution is under a total controll, when there are all necessary conditions, when people are morally ready for it. But itís too early to talk about that.

And again, democratic games in human rights are completely inappropriate when the issue concernes wild animals. These are not just words, this is my honest beliefe. We HAVE to speak their language to withstand them as they donít speak any other.
By the way, happy to say that the punishment measures were significantly increased for terrorism in Russia this week, but very unhappy to say that still no death penalty included. I do believe the abolishement of the moratorium for the execution of death penalty in Russia would be reasonable under the circumstances.

Sadie, I can understand you're anger about recent events and I think everyone on this forum is with you on that.

I'm concerned that laws which apply to such rare, shocking and abhorrent acts of violence against humanity could be extended to include ordinary, everyday crimes such as domestic murder which are much, much more common and account for the large majority of murders.

I don't know about in Russia, but in the UK the most common murders are:

1 - Infanticide: Killing your baby/child.

2 - Matricide: Killing your mother.

3 - Patricide: Killing your father.

...and so on through family members and people you have close personal relationships to.

Shocking isn't it!

Would you really want the death penalty for these people?

Sadie
09-09-2004, 15:12
Matt, if I say hat I am against the abolishement of the death penalty that doesnít actually mean that I am for executing everybody right and left. Then again Ė the most typical murder and the most typical crime for which the criminals get their dp sentence are two different things as far as I understand.

Russian Criminal code includes 5 articles with this exclusive penalty only if I am not mistaken, such as murder with aggravating circumstances, genocide etc.

Speaking of your exaples Ė I think itís insane to allow such a punishment in these cases, as it would smell with atavism a bit, plus quite many of such family crimes (if not the majority) are committed in a state of temporary insanity or have been provoken (normalny grammar, no? :D) by the victims (I think) which is according to Russian criminal law is regarded to be a mitigating circumstance. The killing by a mother of her newborn child is not a grave crime as well. And I agree with the Russian Law on that. Of course I am speaking about crimes of other type.

Matt Bury
09-09-2004, 15:31
Well, I'm glad that we agree on that. You're very well read on this stuff. I of course know just about nothing about Russian criminal law.

This does bring everyone else who's in favour of the death penalty, however, in on the question of which crimes they think justify it.

I think most of us agree that murder in the heat of the moment or under extreme duress doesn't merit capital punishment...

... so what does?

Matt Bury
09-09-2004, 15:32
I am in no way stating that I'm for or against the death penalty. I'm leaving that one firmly on the fence!

Ned Kelly
09-09-2004, 15:38
Originally posted by Matt Bury
I'm leaving that one firmly on the fence!

just watch out for that crusty curmudgeon, kniga, who's likely to clothes-line you when you try to get back on the field.

i'm in a neck-brace as we speak.

kniga
09-09-2004, 18:19
Ned, and deservedly so! :-)

kniga
09-09-2004, 18:20
Matt,

You can join Peyote on the fence, the place where philosophy students hide when hard decisions are required.

peyote
09-09-2004, 19:29
Originally posted by kniga
Matt,

You can join Peyote on the fence, the place where philosophy students hide when hard decisions are required. kniga, if i would have known then what i know now i would have done it slightly different... er, mm, completely different... mm, i voted yes for the war... but no, really, well, only if we meant to win... er, i mean... peace... no, but... of course i'm for the death penalty... well, not really.

:confused:

just practicing to become a democrat candidate... ;)

maddog
09-09-2004, 19:48
Is execution really legal murder?

kniga
09-09-2004, 20:10
Peyote,

You're doing a fine job and no doubt will be selected by the Kerry campaign to join their staff.

koba65
10-09-2004, 01:43
Originally posted by Matt Bury
Well, I'm glad that we agree on that. You're very well read on this stuff. I of course know just about nothing about Russian criminal law.

This does bring everyone else who's in favour of the death penalty, however, in on the question of which crimes they think justify it.

I think most of us agree that murder in the heat of the moment or under extreme duress doesn't merit capital punishment...

... so what does?

In no particular order:
Child killers (I'd even toss molestors into the fire)
Serial Killers
Terrorists
Anyone who rapes and then kills someone
Anyone who kills someone and mutilates/abuses the corpse

koba65
10-09-2004, 01:45
Originally posted by Matt Bury
You're talking as if the alternative to the death penalty is to just let the criminal go free.

That's a leap in logic. I'm not offering an alternative to the death penalty. And I'm not saying every murder warrants a death penalty.

Kshisya
10-09-2004, 11:18
Originally posted by maddog
Is execution really legal murder?


Finally! brovo! my applause goes to you mad. I already thought I am the only one who considers THIS aspect one of the most important in this issue.

Why nobody else mentioned the fact that in case of death penalty there a number of ppl (not just the executer/s) who have the power and take responsibility for AND legally asssigned to COMMIT a MURDER. How on earth would you justify that?

Besides, think about one more thing. None of us would accept such a job, right? I do think that only ppl with very specific phsycology can volunteer for that and "dedicate" career to executing death penalty or supporting/lobbying it. I personally believe that these ppl are inclined to the crimes and violence themselves (dont give comments that they feel some social responsibility, like doing righteous thing, somebody has to do this job etc.) and these ppl got legal protection to kill ppl and enjoy their work and sleep pretty well at night.


Life sentence should be a real punishment tho. We talk bout humanity? f sake! what kind of humanity we talking in this case? It is more than human to provide prisonas with food, water, warm bed, toilet paper, tidy place and regula medical examination and help - that's more than enough. no tv, no book, no walks, no internet, no visitor, no any communication with external world. THAT would be fair.

I visited an american jail once and was amazed that some ppl do feel like on a long vacation there, oh well that another subject, but that's just a lil more to support my first comment that I am still against death penalty and I agree with kniga that there can't be 50/50 attitude in this case, can't be exceptions. you are either for or against it - simple.

Sadie as for your comment on experiences...you know i had very dreadful experiences, my friends had as well however I would never support killing as a punishment or the right solution.

jules
10-09-2004, 12:40
There was a highly publicised case in Canada where a man was sent to prison for life for the murder of another man during a robbery attempt. The key evidence that put him away was an eyewitness statement by another man, a respected member of the community, who was considered more credible than the accused, a teenager who was inebriated at the time of the crime.

Years later, on his deathbed, this respected member of society admitted that he had committed the murder himself and blamed it on the drunk kid who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In some states, that kid would have been already dead, executed for first-degree murder. In Canada, he was still in prison, and was freed once the courts realised the truth.

I met him once, in a bar back home - he's now a bitter, broken man. But at least he's alive.

85StonePolarBear
10-09-2004, 13:29
I would volunteer to erase the miserable life of anyone involved in the recent terrorist atrocities here. Plain and simple, and that would include the use of any method whatsoever which would not expose me to potential harm. If anyone can pass my coordinates on to law enforcement, please PM me (and I am not joking, although I think they do not need volunteers).

I am not sure whether the above would pertain to a serial killer or other murderer.

Shaun
29-09-2004, 03:34
'killing is terrible, so let's kill the bastard perpetrators' always reminds me of 'guns don't kill, people kill people'

ridiculous logic.

and for those of you defining these people as 'subhuman evil scum' or whatever... this from amnesty:

80% of the cases submitted by federal prosecutors for death penalty review in the past five years have involved racial minorities as defendants. In more than half of those cases, the defendant was African-American.


So presumably, black people are more likely to be evil subhuman scum? Or maybe social circs, prejudiced juries, human error all come into the equation, and the best thing would be to do away with the death penalty altogether?

koba65
29-09-2004, 03:58
Originally posted by Shaun

So presumably, black people are more likely to be evil subhuman scum? Or maybe social circs, prejudiced juries, human error all come into the equation, and the best thing would be to do away with the death penalty altogether?

That's your logic not mine as far as the death penalty is concerned. Be careful with statistics - they're just plain figures. I could easily post a quote using statistics written by an African-American (Thomas Sowell) stating that majority of violent crimes (over 80%) are committed by African-Americans (and before you go labeling me as racist - don't. I'm making a point about how statistics can be used to make ones case, I'm not stating my opinion). Something tells me that an indepth study of people who commit capital crimes will show a correlation in their social background (poor whites, poor blacks, poor hispanics). Still doesn't excuse them for the crimes they've committed. Should the death penalty be reformed to significantly reduce error - hell ya. Should it be abolished? Not in my opinion.

Trade Craft
16-10-2004, 04:16
I voted -only for exceptional crimes.

I'd say only for 1st degree murder (planned and premeditated). This includes any sort of terrorist killing, crimes against humanity and serial killing. It's a fact most murders are crimes of passion that occur between people who know each other. It's still reprehensible but not deserving of the death sentence.

Honestly a 25 year to life sentence is worse then death in many cases in a lot of places.

legend
14-11-2004, 19:55
should only apply to those who support it.

Benedikt
25-10-2007, 19:38
here is what amnesty international has to say:

"The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It violates the right to life. It is irrevocable and can be inflicted on the innocent and has never been shown to deter crime more effectively than other punishments".

i fully agree. now imagine child executions. that's disgusting :mad:

stop child executions! (http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-children-eng)
in moscow now there is a courtcase going on about the 'bitsa serial killer' the guy has killed some 50 people in a wooded area in moscow....
and once it strikes closer to home, good forbid nothing ever will happen to your loved ones, people thend to change their minds very quickly...

Bels
25-10-2007, 21:41
Ever hear of an American serial killer named Ted Bundy?

He was executed in the state of Florida for the sexual assault, kidnapping, and murder of a teen. He had murdered dozens of other women over a period of years.

You want to save this kind of person from the death penalty for what reason?


What if ten years later he was proven innocent.

Bels
25-10-2007, 21:48
Any one who decides to put another to death or carries out the execution is worse than the accused. Why , because it has been intellectually thought out, and it has the worst form of being premeditated.

Thou shalt not kill. That applies to all and nobody is above that law.

Korotky Gennady
28-10-2007, 18:29
Tooth for tooth. Death for death... If somebody will kill the member of my family, none has right to not allow me to kill the murderer. And all shiting liberals with their hypocritical goverments go to hell !.
.
.
.
.
..

Blood calls for revenge !

Korotky Gennady
28-10-2007, 18:52
humanity today agrees slavery is wrong. there will be one day when we all agree killing is also wrong.



:(

Never. They are the different things.

Korotky Gennady
28-10-2007, 19:02
1. think of someone you love dearly on death row. then come back to me with your approval. you have to fall very low in the human scale to approve the killing of your loved one. well, i just suppose we should give the same treatment to all, not just your loved one.


2. the world is moving toward abolishment of the death penalty. a great improvement for the animal in us. i tell this to myself when everything else point to life-is-shit... and then again: life IS shit
:(

1. Think about your child or mother or wife who would be raped and killed after or tortured to death and then their murder sits in the big warm cell, listens to music, hears radio, reads books, watches tv, writes novels, speaks every week with journalists and so on.. And he goes in the court everyday for good walking and physical exercises a of course becoz it's "unhuman" to not allow him to do it and keep his health up...

2. The guestion is not that what is life... man. If you need motivation for life, try to find something else. :vomit:

Korotky Gennady
28-10-2007, 19:33
Thou shalt not kill. That applies to all and nobody is above that law.


There is no sense in that words for me coz i am not a christianin. Death for death ! Live with you Jussie and by him... I don't want ! He is a nought for me...

Korotky Gennady
28-10-2007, 19:41
Why nobody else mentioned the fact that in case of death penalty there a number of ppl (not just the executer/s) who have the power and take responsibility for AND legally asssigned to COMMIT a MURDER. How on earth would you justify that?

.

Very simple. No problems. You ought not run away from responsibility but take it and not give it to somebody else... goverment, courts, church and so on...

:fireworks:

ridcully
28-10-2007, 19:43
There are two issues here. One is HOW people should be punished - the other is WHO should determine that punishment. Let's deal with the second point first. [Please note that I am NOT a lawyer - I'm writing this based on my knowledge as an informed citizen!]

Criminal justice systems
A wide range of different societies have developed criminal justice systems. These serve to maintain order, deter and control criminal activity, and to punish those people who violate laws. A number of different agencies play a part in this process. In the UK, Parliament passes laws, that are enforced by the police service, who are responsible for detecting and solving crimes. If the police service believe that someone has a case to answer (eg, they think that someone has committed a murder) then they pass a file on that case to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). If the CPS believe that a prosecution should go ahead, the case is heard by a court - the UK has a system of courts that is independent of the government and the police service. (We are, of course, talking idealities here. The independence of the UK judiciary could form an interesting discussion in the light of current relationships between the UK and Russia.) The court hears the case (and a murder case would be heard by a jury of 12 "ordinary" people [ie not lawyers]) in front of a judge. At the end of the trial, if the jury finds the accused person guilty, the judge will pass sentence.

The reason why criminal justice systems generally (but not exclusively) work without involving the victim (other than as a witness) or the victim's family/friends in the process is based on notions of fairness and equity of treatment. Put simply, there is widespread agreement (in religion, philosophy, politics and elsewhere in the human sphere) that everyone deserves to be treated in a similar way. By removing the interested individual from the justice system, we ensure, as far as is possible, that everyone accused of a crime (and especially for the purposes of this discussion found guilty) is treated equally. Notions of fairness are very deeply embedded in the human mind, and there's a lot more that could be said about this. [Just let me know if you want another posting on this!]

The first issue - of the METHOD of punishment - is different, but follows from the second.

There are very practical issues relating to the death penalty, relating to punishing innocent people. Several people here have already commented on the fact that the execution of an innocent person is an irreversible act. However, so is imprisoning them for 25 years, if it takes that long for them to establish their innocence. There have been some very bad miscarriages of justice in the UK in recent years which have led to innocent people being put in prison for crimes that they did not commit, and these people's lives have been shattered. (It would be a little better if our system compensated people like this, but it doesn't - there was one case recently reported where a man found innocent after many years was told to pay for his food and accommodation while he had been wrongly imprisoned!) For many people (and I'd include myself here) the problem of the death penalty is simply a moral one - that by allowing the state to sanction killing, it effectively reduces the state to the level of the criminal, and that murder by the state cannot be justified. As described above, the state plays a role in drawing up laws and enforcing them, using a variety of sanctions to deter and punish. While fines, community punishments and imprisonment are all sanctions which allow a measure of degree (size of fine, length of imprisonment) the death penalty involves one degree of punishment that violates a very strongly-held taboo in most human societies - that of killing someone else.

This is an emotive subject. And of course, we haven't even touched on arguments about deterrence! Personally, I know that I could never support the use of the death penalty, no matter what the crime.

ridcully
28-10-2007, 19:45
Very simple. No problems. You ought not run away from responsibility but take it and not give it to somebody else... goverment, courts, church and so on...


See my post above. It is not about running away from responsibility - quite the opposite, in fact. The individual - as part of the social contract - has a responsibility to society to ensure equity of treatment for all. By handing the process of justice over to the systems of the state, this responsibility in honoured.

Korotky Gennady
28-10-2007, 19:47
Why nobody else mentioned the fact that in case of death penalty there a number of ppl (not just the executer/s) who have the power and take responsibility for AND legally asssigned to COMMIT a MURDER. How on earth would you justify that?

.

Imagine that it's your not anybody other's little child has been raped to death... (((; Are you gonna give responsibility for revenge to somebody else !??

Do what you ought to do and let all other go to hell !

Bels
28-10-2007, 19:53
Imagine that it's your not anybody other's little child has been raped to death... (((; Are you gonna give responsibility for revenge to somebody else !??

Do what you ought to do and let all other go to hell !

What's the problem, they are going to be punished, but in a different way. Some might consider it worse on themselves to be locked up for the rest of their lives. In fact many try to commit suicide.

Korotky Gennady
28-10-2007, 20:06
What's the problem, they are going to be punished, but in a different way. Some might consider it worse on themselves to be locked up for the rest of their lives. In fact many try to commit suicide.


It's not my prob wether they gonna commit suicide or don't... It's their problem. My problem is that the raper and murderer would be punished fairly... And it's only me who can and ought to decide what is a fair punishment for him. I don't wanna him live any longer and breathe the same air i do... That's all.

Korotky Gennady
28-10-2007, 20:38
1. The reason why criminal justice systems generally (but not exclusively) work without involving the victim (other than as a witness) or the victim's family/friends in the process is based on notions of fairness and equity of treatment.

2. Put simply, there is widespread agreement (in religion, philosophy, politics and elsewhere in the human sphere) that everyone deserves to be treated in a similar way. By removing the interested individual from the justice system, we ensure, as far as is possible, that everyone accused of a crime (and especially for the purposes of this discussion found guilty) is treated equally.

3.Notions of fairness are very deeply embedded in the human mind, and there's a lot more that could be said about this. [Just let me know if you want another posting on this!]

4. There are very practical issues relating to the death penalty, relating to punishing innocent people. Several people here have already commented on the fact that the execution of an innocent person is an irreversible act. However, so is imprisoning them for 25 years, if it takes that long for them to establish their innocence. There have been some very bad miscarriages of justice in the UK in recent years which have led to innocent people being put in prison for crimes that they did not commit, and these people's lives have been shattered. (It would be a little better if our system compensated people like this, but it doesn't - there was one case recently reported where a man found innocent after many years was told to pay for his food and accommodation while he had been wrongly imprisoned!)

5.For many people (and I'd include myself here) the problem of the death penalty is simply a moral one - that by allowing the state to sanction killing, it effectively reduces the state to the level of the criminal, and that murder by the state cannot be justified. As described above, the state plays a role in drawing up laws and enforcing them, using a variety of sanctions to deter and punish. While fines, community punishments and imprisonment are all sanctions which allow a measure of degree (size of fine, length of imprisonment) the death penalty involves one degree of punishment that violates a very strongly-held taboo in most human societies - that of killing someone else.




6. I know that I could never support the use of the death penalty, no matter what the crime.

1. So the western justice systems since the age of starting of kings's power deprive the victims and victim's family their "bloody" rights. And as it is well-known ( Karl Marx wrote about it... ) The one who has no rights, has no risponsibility also... So your words confirm my statements.. not refute them.

2. All politics, religions, philosophy are created by the people who are like you and me. So it's not argument also.

3. I want another post but I don't agree with you. I understand fairness in my way. You do in your way. Why should i do your way or their ways !?? There are no arguments for that.

And how you can know it how deep fairness is embedded in my mind. Maybe it's not "fairness" that is embedded in your mind but it all is modern prejudices only... ?

4. It's technical not prinsipial crucial point. All that we need to do is to try to make it more and more perfect. :yikes:

5. Who speaks about that ? Don't afraid responsibility, take it on yourself.

6. You are not me and I am not you. Why i must go your way ??? If it was the member of my family who was killed or raped, it's mine... not your business what i gonna do with a maniac or with a rapist. Don't impose... i'm sorry... your rotten morality on me. :wazzup: Think for yourself not for me. There were and are too many thinkers who want to decide for me what is right and what is wrong and to deprive me my crucial bloody rights on that thing...You have your perception of morality, I have the other one... You could let and limit yourself to some things and I could let and limit myself to other things. So the question of morality goes down too. How can you prove it that your morality is right one and mine is wrong ???

-------------------------------------------------------------

So I has coped with all your arguments. :fireworks:

ridcully
28-10-2007, 21:01
1. So the western justice systems since the age of starting of kings's power deprive the victims and victim's family their "bloody" rights. And as it is well-known ( Karl Marx wrote about it... ) Who have no rights, who have no risponsibility also... So your words confirm my statements.. not refute them.

Rights are also the subject of social contracts. Whilst rights and responsibilities are linked (I cannot have a right with a corresponding responsibility), whether I have a "bloody right" is socially-determined. I don't, under Western legal frameworks, for the reasons I have described.


2. All politics, religions, philosophy are created by the people who are like you and me. So it's not argument also.

Oh absolutely - all knowledge (science included) is socially-situated, I wouldn't ever argue against that. And there is nothing in my position that is inconsistent with that.


3. I want another post but I don't agree with you. I understand fairness in my way. You do in your way. Why should i do your way or their ways !?? There are no arguments for that.

Yes, that's consistent with (2) above - I agree that we may have different notions of what is 'fair'.


And how you can know it how deep fairness is embedded in my mind. Maybe it's not "fairness" that is embedded in your mind but modern prejudices only... ?

Well, I think that fairness is probably quite a universal concept in societies where the emphasis is on the individual. And it's a theme that runs, in one way or another, through Western moral philosophy (I know you teach philosophy!).


4. It's technical not prinsipial question. All that we need to do is to try to make it more and more perfect. :yikes:

No, I think that this is principally a MORAL question! There are PRACTICAL implications, but capital punishment has to be justified morally first of all. (Actually true of all human actions.)


5. Who speaks about that ? Don't afraid responsibility, take it on yourself.

As I've already said, the responsible act here is for the state to act for the individual, in order that one's responsibility for fairness to others are upheld.


6. You are not me and I am not you. Why i must go your way ??? If it's the member of my family was killed or raped, it's mine... not your business what i gonna do with a maniac or a rapist. :wazzup:

If we live in the same society, with the same social contract, then it IS my business.


So I has coped with all your arguments.

I think we might continue this for some time - but maybe F2F over a glass of something! :)