For or Against Death Penalty? Why?

Originally posted by wayaboveitall
I think thats a moot point. Cruel and unusual punishment is what they committed.

That's what separates a decent society from the monsters that prey upon it.

Hey wayaboveitall,

Sorry for the delay in posting to here but I had to give it some thought as I don't think killing another based upon their actions is a truthful thing to do but I didn't know what could give them the punishment or veracity that their crimes call for.

I have came up with an alternative though, and it's fairly brutal.

So in the spirits of shiz and giggles what about having publicly displayed reinforced glass boxes which individually house those found guilty of the worst crimes?

These people are naked and without toilet facilities, cannot see outside of their boxes due the inner glass being mirrored and are constantly washed down from hoses from above. The boxes are also sound proof and have a plaque outside of them detailing the crime committed by those housed within.

They are fed slops once a day (without plates or cutlery) and have to listen to soul breaking music all day long.

This would deter others from committing crimes (For they can easily see what will become of them) and would give these criminals a life worse than death.

It beats the death penalty and has a few added benefits to boot.

So, how's that for an idea?

-m0r

Originally posted by DOADOA
i am for the death penalty with one condition, it must be carried out by the person asking for it. if the victim have no known relative, friends would do just fine. if they have no friends or relatives, suspect should spend a maximum of 3 year in prison before execution by state.

if you want someone dead, do it yourself. don't sit there and expect someone else to do it for you.

Aah yes. But then they come and sue the state for their PTSD. As a generl prinviple I do agree that we should be closer to the messy part of life and not commit murder by proxy. I also hold a similar thing for our food.

[edit on 13-3-2010 by Tiger5]

Against it because it costs more to have the death penalty than it does to simply incarcerate for life WPOP. You might disagree. This might not sound right to you. But think of it this way. Take one state that spends $200 million in a year on death penalty cases while putting to death only two people. That's $100 million/person. The whole death penalty system is an incredible waste of money. Maybe in Texas where they love to put people to death. Maybe there it is worth the money. But in most states executions are extremely rare. Throw murderers in a super max and forget about them. Or if you insist on keeping this death penalty, do it swiftly without all the appeals and decades on death row and dual sentencing, etc. Here where I live executions are so rare they make the news when they happen, and they don't even happen every year.

LOl Mor.

OK for those opposed , or/and those who beleive the law itself or jail sentences deter, how is it then, that such crimes continue unabated?
Mor's idea is humerous, but how about some feasble applicable sentencing that could be applied in reality? Putting aside for a moment that it may be unpopular , or other reasons it might not ever be applied.
what do you suggest would deter?
Sentenced to surrender all viable organs for donation (which is effectively death penalty anyway)?
Sentenced to be a research subject ?Lethal or non lethal?

If you consider any sentencing, what does it acheive that benefits society?
apart from 'lock them up' which I submit does not benefit and indeed cost us dearly.
Surely the whole point is to prevent a criminal having been convicted, from re-offending. This must be number one.

Clearly this oftern fails and the system creates a worse monster who is later released, having 'done the time', but not changed, and is free to commit again. FAIL

Number 2 must be satisfying the publics need to see then punished, again, what does it acheive? (see above)

Where in the system is prevention of crime? simply having law against it is meaningless, this is self evident. Threatening long jail terms does not deter, police do not deter, contrary to popular beleif, they are there to deal with it after the fact, as is the court.

If I suggested a system of public policing, the goody two shoes would cry 'vigilante'! but police cant be everywhere, joe public is.
How likely is somebody to commit a crime, if they knew members of the public nearby would NOT stand by and pretend not to see, and not get involved, but take action.
Who will commit armed robbery if thwe public are armed and will shoot at you?

Ofcourse im opposed to guns myself, but the fact is, people are afraid, guns empower them.
How about law that allows the public to uphold it? if joe citizen shoots dead an idiot holding up a store and it turns out his gun was a toy, is joe responsible, or the idiot?

Yes I hear you, we'd have folk killing folk willy nilly right? Isnt that whats going on now?

[edit on 13-3-2010 by wayaboveitall]

reply to post by wayaboveitall


I used to be very very very pro capitol punishment until I was forced to do research for a debate in a psychology class. Once I researched capitol punishment I quickly realized how wrong I was. There is no need for us to be killing people as a society. What does that say about how primitive we are? We're still killing people and claiming its for the best or needs to be done, we rationalize the same way for many wars.

I also put myself in the shoes of a killer convicted for life and death seemed to be too easy an out. If the purpose of prison is to punish than life in prison is far worse than the death penalty.

It also amazed me while I did my research how many people who supported capitol punishment were Christian, I myself was Christian at the time and had been taught to be pro death penalty by my Christian Father and Mother. And yet Jesus instructs the opposite of the death penalty even healing the ear of a Roman soldier sent to arrest him after one of the disciples injures the soldier. Jesus turns the other cheek.

So empathy, logic, and the desire for society to progress (the death penalty is ancient as can be, hardly civilized) convinced me to be against the death penalty. It doesn't really do any good and certainly doesn't deter criminals.

Originally posted by muons200
I see your point of view, but there have been countries that have used chemical castration and disontinued it as not viable to stopping abuse. Child sexual abuse does not always mean rape, and can be as devastating to the victim. Even full castration would not stop them if they wanted to carry on abusing.

Very true. I might be ok with life sentences for them on top of castration. Can't hurt anyone if their locked up.

Jails are hotbeds of corruption, vice and suffering

Imo, victimless crimes such as possession of personal-use drugs, traffic offences -- also crimes involving embezzlement, robbery -- disturbing the peace, etc. should not result in jail sentences but rather the perpetrators should work for the community for x-number of hours, years, commensurate with the gravity of their crime. In cases of extreme seriousness (such as driving under the influence, resulting in police chases, etc.) then hard-labour should be the automatic sentence leading to the perpetrators finding themselves in leg-irons, cracking rocks, the day after, complete with hangover

Crimes against the person (bashings, muggings, etc.) should be dealt with via hard-labour. No appeals, no lawyers. Straight out sentencing. Hard labour -- sweat and toil. Chain gangs

Jail would then be reserved for the hard cases -- the murderers, the paedophiles, political criminals, war criminals, corporate criminals. Death sentence. I'd even include on death-row those who falsify medical research leading to deaths in the community

Thousands die every day as result of 'our' troops' activities. We don't see people losing sleep over it. It's accepted as 'part of war' -- even when our politicians orchestrated the wars for their personal profit. Then we weep and wave banners when 'our' uniformed murderers and rapists return from the slaughter

The justice system is rotten to the core and jails are inhumane and achieve nothing apart from making profit for those who were granted contracts to run privatised institutions by our filthy, corrupt politicians and their cronies

Most in jail wish they were dead and would be better off dead. They're going to die anyway, as we all are. It's hypocritical and gutless to put people in disgusting institutions and pretend the problem's been solved. We can't afford it. And not as if we're going to run out of people any time soon. As a society, we can find more worthwhile purposes for the money that's spent keeping people locked up

According to those who research these issues, it's largely the same ten percent within society which cause problems lifelong. An intelligent society would be eliminating that ten percent on continual basis

When we accept that and put it into effect, we should then eliminate the rogue ten (or more) percent of nations which are responsible for giving the world's society the most headaches

[edit on 13-3-2010 by Dock9]

reply to post by wayaboveitall


The idea of using criminals guilty of the most heinous crimes as "lab rats" has considerable merit. The malefactors would be repaying society with something of real worth.
I don't buy the 'slippery slope" argument; if someone is *unquestionably* guilty of serial killings, sexual thrill killings,et. al., using them as experimental subjects demonstrates/underlines their forfiture of their humanity. The criminal "signed out" of the human race when they committed their crimes-*they* anulled their humanity.
Or there's always the scorpion pit...
(joke directed at OP, not a genuine proposal)

[edit on 19/3/10 by chrisbasa]

[edit on 19/3/10 by chrisbasa]

reply to post by chrisbasa


Clarification; I meant that using criminals in this way would not, IMO, lead to the devaluing of other, non-criminal, humans. To suggest that this would lead to the extermination of, for example, mentally challenged people is a non sequitur.

I do have compassion; for victims and lab animals. Criminal scum are, at best, a potental commodity.

"Some people are just damaged units from the outset I think and therefore should be removed from genepool."

Wasn't there a guy by the name of Adolf Hitler who advocated the same? And who is to decide who stays and who goes? And since most human beings in power are corrupt and untrustworthy by nature, this seems to be a rather slippery slope which you advocate.

Sorry, but I do not think the ultimate progress and well being of the human species can be predicated on barbaric knee jerk reactions such as violence and revenge. Laws such as the death penalty not only appeal to mankind's savage nature, they promote it.

Do you think it is by accident that non-death penalty states have lower murder rates than death penalty states? The same can also be shown for free civilized countries which do not have the death penalty.

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...

The fact of the matter is big money interests in the United States rely on high levels of crime to turn a profit. The legislative, law enforcement, judicial and penal systems have nothing to do with deterring crime and everything to do with protecting big business. As mentioned by other posters, the death penalty means big money for those who control the system.

Unless this type of poisonous profit driven thinking changes, crime will continue to be a serious problem in society.