|
|
| An eye for an eye. If you commit murder, you should be executed. Period. | | 6 | | I support it in some cases of 1st degree murder when there's extra violent/malicious extenuating circumstances. | | 8 | | I don't support it. Killing someone because they killed someone makes no sense. | | 5 | | | 5 |
|
| | |
| | 
Hewhocannotbenamed
 
Last Seen:
11/11/2008 11:51 AM
Posts: 2,186
Visits: 5,180
|
| | Welcome Copy and Paste. I thought there was a post minimum to see this area so new joins wouldn't be scared off? Just a warning for you Copy and Paste. Everyone here is civil, however the arguments can get very intense. So if you like a good debate, please join in. Just be prepared. Now on to my opinion. I support the death penalty in cases of murder but not manslaughter. If you killed intentionally with no justification, then it should apply. If you killed accidently, then it should not. However the system needs to be reformed. It cost way too much to apply the death penalty to someone. It is important to let them have a few appeals to insure you are not putting an innocent man to death. However endless appeals for 20 years is just ridiculous. Also here is my controversal bit. I think innocent by reason of insanity is a crock. If someone is crazy enough that they kill for no reason, that is even more reason to apply the death penalty in my mind. If they are such a danger to others that they just randomly kill, society has no reason to keep them around. Even if you could cure them, which is doubtful, you could never be sure for how long or if they where really cured. |
--
 "In our November issue we mistakenly labeled World in Conflict as ESRB rated M instead of T. Because apparently, it's ok to detonate a nuclear device in a major American city, as long as you don't see the blood of the countless innocent people you've killed until you turn 17." PC Gamer #169 Need help with your civ addiction (or just a good laugh).
Go to civanon for help.
"You won't stop playing until you WANT to stop playing."
Edited: 11/1/2007 10:18 AM by ddmagnan |  |  |
| |
| | 
Elite Pathogen
Last Seen:
Yesterday @ 7:58 PM
Posts: 4,420
Visits: 10,971
|
| | |
| | 
Impeached by a patch
Last Seen:
2 days ago @ 7:03 AM
Posts: 1,826
Visits: 3,491
|
| Nuclearcow is right. It's easy to say that one innocent who gets sentenced is one too much. Still, such an attitude is utterly inpragmatic, as nobody could ever be punished for anything.
The extensive appeals processes necessary in the case of death sentences in the US (which is the only Western country using capital punishment regularly, and is thus worth considering as archetypical for its introduction into any other Western country) make sure that, while there is a small chance of innocent conviction, the chance that someone gets innocently executed is far lower than the chance that the same guy would get his life ruined by a life prison sentence. And still, capital punishment manages to be cheaper than life imprisonment in a high-security facility.
When making policy decisions, one cannot do so from the idea that human life is invaluable. If one would do so, the consequence would be that healthcare would have to be given an infinite budget. And that soldiers and other workers running a risk of fatality would have to be paid an infinitely high wage, to compensate for the chance that they might die. An infinite value on human life multiplied with a 10^-100 chance of dying is still infinite.
In real policymaking, you are effectively forced to assign human life a very specific, very much finite value. |
--
| | | |
| |
| | 
Good night, and good luck.
Last Seen:
6/19/2008 5:06 AM
Posts: 79
Visits: 343
|
| (Edit : lol for some reason, that post is before the other one when i posted the other first. Oo'
you should therefore read the second one first.  )
About the last post of you Konrad :
Maybe you’ll tell me i’m not realistic, but i think that innocent beeing executed if far too frequent. Even if not frequent.
Konrad von Richtmark (11/1/2007)
the chance that someone gets innocently executed is far lower than the chance that the same guy would get his life ruined by a life prison sentence.
you can’t reduce this to cold statistics, seriously.
The big difference is that the guy in prison for life time has that very life time to proove his innocence when the dead guy can’t.
that should balance the statistics. does it ?
Konrad von Richtmark (11/1/2007)
And still, capital punishment manages to be cheaper than life imprisonment in a high-security facility.
this is a point where we wont ever agree.
I mean, to me, the cost argument is intolerable.
That, i think is a quite european point of view.
You reproach defenders of abolishment to be inpragmatic,
I reproach defenders of death penalty to be too pragmatic when talking about human lifes.
Konrad von Richtmark (11/1/2007)
When making policy decisions, one cannot do so from the idea that human life is invaluable. If one would do so, the consequence would be that healthcare would have to be given an infinite budget. And that soldiers and other workers running a risk of fatality would have to be paid an infinitely high wage, to compensate for the chance that they might die. An infinite value on human life multiplied with a 10^-100 chance of dying is still infinite.
to me this above quote is a quite unrealistic view of things, coming from someone lauding pragmatism.
Allow me to explain : the philosophic idea « that human life is invaluable » can obviously not mean in real world that you have to allow infinite budget to health care or whatever.
But it means you have to manage to do the best in those zone where this idea can be applied.
That is precisely the reason of difference of health system between France and US for example.
US works with privative insurance compagnies, costs a lot, poor people have difficulties to benefit of care.
But in the other hand it means health care manage to do profits.
In France everyone can benefit of care with a governement system of « social security »
But in the other hand, that institution has a negative budget and cost a lot to the governement.
That is two different views.
But the difference relies on that very idea of human life beeing unvaluable.
If you followed my thought, that means that you can make very decent propositions to fulfil that idea.
Without ruining your budget, just by finding realistic solutions for a unrealistic theory.
Therefore, human life can actually be consider to unvaluable, even in policy institutions.
And then death penalty becomes much more harder to defend.
(i mean in countries that have that view on human life)
Konrad von Richtmark (11/1/2007)
In real policymaking, you are effectively forced to assign human life a very specific, very much finite value.
after what i explained you can i think understand my following opinion:
No you are not forced.
Allow me to deeply disagree with this point. 
PS : by reading my post before posting it, i realized i had to precise something :
hear me well, even if i agaisnt the american system of health care or justice and so on, i do not flame it by saying : « countries that have that view on human life ».
I respect that system even if i disagree with.
i am not spitting on US system neither i am lauding the french system.
i am just saying that both have disadvantages, and that i prefer the european one for beeing less pragmatic.
|
--
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."
Oscar Wilde
Edited: 11/4/2007 1:30 AM by Copy and Paste | | | |
| |
| |
Good night, and good luck.
Last Seen:
6/19/2008 5:06 AM
Posts: 79
Visits: 343
|
| The first thing i want to begin with is to say that i'm not norvegian, but french !
(omg a french in a american politics forum !!! )
i'll begin my quotes comment on a post of you nuclearcow :
Nuclearcow (10/31/2007)
Having a loved one murdered is something that no Earthly punishment can adequately provide 'justice' for, no matter what that punishment is. The victim(s) is(are) not coming back. If its your wife, son, neighbor, mom or whomever, that person was robbed from your life, their life, their kids life, etc, etc.
please apply that to someone that has been executed beeing innocent and to his family.
nothing is indeed going to "repare" the damage done.
many of you are saying that "one is too many" argument can be applied to anything and would make everything stoped, like driving, swimmingpools etc... (jerm's examples)
but those problems are beeing fought by law making about security devices around swimming pools, by police control to limit speed etc... because you can obviously not stop using cars or forbid people build swimming pools, thats a law that no country or state in the world has done.
in the other hand, abolish capital punishment is a law that many country have made. not only to simply eliminates the "casualties" of innocent occuring with it of course, but it is still a part of the pro-abolishment speach.
For me, the "one is too many" argument is DEFINITLY an unfailing argument agaisnt death penalty.
other point : with driving casualties (to keep that example), the reason of most of the lethal accidents are a direct fault with some point :
alcohol,
speed,
unconsciousness,
whatever what else.
and the person responsible for the accident is a citizen, he is a person. the casualty can from here be brought in justice.
their is a justice in this case.
for the casualties of death penalty, the justice itself is responsible !
that makes people disapointed with it,
and for most cases it is never brought in justice to have any judgment about it.
and even if money reparation was done, and public rehabilitation of the executed victim was made, you said yourself that nothing can truly "repare" the death of that person.
therefore, allow me to think that justice shouldn't be using such extreme punishment, punishment that cannot be undone.
you cannot by a simple and quick decision stop people beeing unconscious on roads or household accident to happen,
but you can about innocent beeing executed.
And i think this decision should be made.
other quote of you nuclearcow :
Nuclearcow (10/31/2007)
If I had the choice of spending the rest of my life behind bars to rot away without freedom, I would find death much more humane, even if I had been wrongly convicted. In my opinion, quality of life would make death the more humane choice, at least if it was me who was on the receiving end.
allow me to doubt about that point.
you are saying this coldly because you are sitting in front of your computer in your beloved home, on your confortable seat.
but i cannot believe that in death row, you would truly wish your own death with in mind the strong belief that you are innocent.
just think about that moment : beeing in front of the rope, or chair, or lethal injection room and beeing innocent...
i think that if you have humanity, and everyone has, that thought is intolerable.
the "one is too many" argument shoudn't be eluded that easily with examples that have (excuse me for those following words) nothing in common with the capital punishment discution we are having right now.
i'll come back with other quotations.
Regards,
|
--
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."
Oscar Wilde
| | | |
| |
| |
Good night, and good luck.
Last Seen:
6/19/2008 5:06 AM
Posts: 79
Visits: 343
|
| The next thing i want to bring up the table is about the image that is made about murderers so far in this post.
Some of you bring the example where death penalty should for sure beeing applied, ie the cases where the murderers kills with no reason, or is an insane or crazy person, whatever.
My point starts from the idea that nothing is innate at birth. By that i mean that everything is acquired during the life time of each person, making each person what they are.
i think some of you will disagree with that first idea. And that it might be also a difference of view between the old continent and US way of thinking.
but allow me to continue :
if you take that idea as base, then you have to agree on the facts that socities « produces » their criminality.
By poverty, by non-integration of immigrants, by inequality that can bring people to look for other ways to perform what they need in life.
(i take such examples cause those are the very reasons of like 75% of criminality in France)
many of you are talking about the price of inprisonnement, and propose the solution of death penalty to reduce those cost, or at least to not abolish death penatly in order not to increase those costs.
My view about it, is to find in the society (and by that i mean the most global sens of society) what causes criminality in order to reduce criminality itself !
I was quite amazed that that discution about punishment and death penalty didn’t talk about how to reduce criminality in the first place.
Cause that’s how you reduce inprisonnement costs and justice costs !
Not by killing murderers.
I think the cost argument has no reason to be brought in this discution.
Other point :
Talking about crazy people random killing around them, everybody here talks about them like deangerous beasts that have to be gunned down.
But here also, i see in them the person, the human, that has completely lost reality.
And something brought this person to this state of madness.
That something must be fought.
In US, i think the psychotic killers and the mass murderers are much more numerous than in other countries. Such as Canada, or european countries.
And by that i mean also in terms of ratio (including numbers of citizens etc…)
For me it clearly means that something is wrong in US society that « produces » killers and psychos.
Again, i am not saying that europe is gold and US is bad. Please do not reduce my sayings in such binary non-senses.
I have no magic solutions, i am not saying that everything should be made in US just like in Europe cause it is obviously a non-sens too as those continents are very different in all terms.
I am just trying to bring other thoughts in that debate about death penalty.
Allow me to go on :
Scipio Africanus (10/27/2007)
What is worse: locking some one up in a cage in social worlds that turn people into sociopathic deviants, or meting out justice by quickly and painlessly putting them to death?
to me, that sounds like a notice of failure.
It must be possible to make « cages » less deviants,
It must be possible to reduce murder rate,
It must be possible to come with other solutions than kill whatever crosses the line, without working on above problems.
Nuclearcow (10/28/2007)
I heard once that China executes its murders and dope dealers, etc and bills the guy's family for the bullet. Its chump change, but has a subtle message that they were somewhat responsible for the guy turning out that way.
that is not to admit their social systems produces frustration, inequalities and that profit at all cost has actually a human cost.
That is not to admit china’s criminality is from china’s choices.
Nuclearcow (10/28/2007)
I remember reading an article on Saudi justice where they referenced 2 neighbors that were arguing and neighbor 1 threw a rock at neighbor 2 and it hit neighbor 2 in his front 2 teeth and knocked them both out. Neighbor 1 got 6 months jail for battery and at the conclusion, they yanked his 2 front teeth in public to make things equal. Again... I kinda like it. Its even more punishment that neighbor 1 had to think about that impending 'justice' for 6 months before it happened. In the US, if I did that to my neighbor, I probably would get probation or some crap like that and my neighbor would suffer for life when my wrist really didn't even get slapped. Again, I like it.
. . .
that is the example that has made me in amazement.
This is a primitive, brutal, vicious and violent way of law making.
Shall i remind you that that same country stones adultary womens ? (not males of course, it’s always womens fault isn’t it ?)
Not only they perform brutal maiming, but they do it in public ?
Come on ! that is from middle ages times seriously.
That is humiliating, degrading and traumatazing, and far more than recieve a stone in front teeth.
After that, you can be sure that punished guy is going to be deviant in all way.
That does not produce anything good. Seriously.
In US or in any western country, if you do so, you will pay this person damages compensations, you will be declared « loser » on any law demand on neighborhood stuff and what ever else.
And that is fair enough.
Why looking for other barbarious way to make things equal ?
« An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth » (if ever that is the correct quotation in english)
is a middle age waste.
PS : sorry about beeing sarcastic in that last quote comment. But that really made me jump to the ceilling when i red it.
|
--
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious."
Oscar Wilde
Edited: 11/4/2007 2:45 AM by Copy and Paste | | | |
| |
| |
Good night, and good luck.
Last Seen:
6/19/2008 5:06 AM
Posts: 79
Visits: 343
|
| I have some other points i want to reach about that discution.
(and after that i'm up with flooding, i swear it's true )
The main one is that some of you are thinking that abolishment of death penalty will cause criminality to increase.
But you have to meet the statistics.
None such increase has happened to none of the countries that have abolished capital punishment. (maybe i'm wrong, please tell me if i am.)
But anyway, the fear of death penalty is not something that is actually reducing criminality.
Most of the murders are made in a blind anger, despair, hate or what ever other dazzling feeling or state of mind.
Most of the murderers are not thinking about the punishment when they perform their crimes.
Therefore that argument is null and void.
An other point i wanted to reach is that life emprisonement is actually a very strong and painfull punishment, maybe even more than death.
Beeing in jail for life time is a strong and hard punishment.
It is hard enough. No need to think about a harder way to make justice. in my opinion.
About victims suffering from seeing the murderer of their beloved beeing in jail and alive. Well, that is a point |
|
|
|
