Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Death Penalty (effective Punishment or Cruel and Unusual)?

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by mako0956
Just wondering what country of origin, citizenship you are of.

What's the justice system lilke over there like?

How does the Swedish government handle people who are violent, brutal criminals? Violent sex offenders? Do they utilize the death penalty?


Well now that you have the answer to your previous question, I'm sure you can easily educate yourself about the Swedish justice system by the use of google. As to the death penalty; you can find the answer to that question only 7 posts up.

[edit on 6-9-2004 by Durden]




posted on Sep, 6 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Thanks for the directions!


[edit on 6-9-2004 by mako0956]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Who executes the executioner?


OK,OK its a one liner... but...

effective or cruel and unusual?

[edit on 14/12/2004 by Corinthas]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Im for death penalty but with condition.In cases of rape/murder etc, DNA tesing should be mandatory, I wouldnt want to be innocent but found guilty or for it to happen to a loved one. If proven guilty with dna evidence, corroborated by two independant labs, then lethal injection gets my vote, even though many deserve a less kind death.
Death itself does not punish, the offender cannot consider the consequences of his/her actions afterwards, however, they will not offend again.
Heres an example of a crime that warrants the death penalty without consideration. A few years ago a twisted loner called Martin Byrant shot dead thirty innocent people in tasmania (australia) including children trying to hide, two little girls tried to hide behind a tree and he chased them and killed them.
Later he barricaded himself in a building before setting himself or the building on fire, before coming out and giving himself up. Had I been a police marksman I would have blown him away without the slightest moral quibble or hesitation. This man is serving life (affective here as literally never to be released). Why are we paying to keep this scum alive?
In any case as this where guilt is evident beyond doubt, i see no reason even for a trial, police should be allowed to kill with impunity, immediatly.
On the other side, a 16 y.o who rapes. can he be rehabilitaed, or not?, i think in this case perhaps attempt phycological rehab, if he reoffends then life in prison. But tell that to the parents of the girl he raped.
Then you have even younger scum, who are surely mentally deranged, such as the boys who kidnapped and murdered a two year old jamie bulger in england some years ago. If 12 y.o boys can do this, theres no doubt they are beyong rehab, they are obviously damaged goods. Seriously damaged, and I would advocate lethal injection for these.
This particular case was very disturbing, the murdered a two year old with a house brick after planning his abduction and taking him to a secluded rail yard/tracks. Such intent is not impulsive behaviour.
Barring the above the scenarios, life in prison for those convicted of murder by dna evidence, and they should be used for medical research, particularly in the case of aggrevated cruelty. (ie particularly savage and calculated murder)
Imo infanticide should warrent atleast lethal injection, i dont buy postnatal depression and similar crap. we live in a society where help is avail, there is no call to murder any child. Excepting by the state in the case of theabove english boys, and like cases. A murderous twisted child will become a murderopus twisted adult.

Why would (or should) society use such a penalty?

To protect itself from those who would seek to harm others through fear of the punishment itself, or disposing of the offender thus ensuring the prevention of any further such actions?


Both of these reasons, anyone who takes life should give it in return, simply languishing in jail at the expense of the society to whom you owe such debt is ridiculous.
Those convicted by dna eviedence or whos guilt is evident by the nature of the crime (see martin bryant above) should either:
(a) get life in prison being to serve as a human guinea pig for human medical research, thereby giving (if indirected) life in return, and paying a tangible debt for their crime/s.
(b) lethal injection, for the above resons and to save those to whom they owe their debt a lifetime of tax dollars.
(c) be put to death in a human manner and all/any viable organs harvested to directily give tangible payment for their crime. Wating list for organs are huge.

[edit on 073131p://47127 by instar]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 08:07 AM
link   
As much as I realize this thread is quite a large one to read, I would still advice to do so; at least briefly so as to avoid having to rehash the same issues again. But I'll add what I've stated earlier in short.

Originally posted by instar

Why would (or should) society use such a penalty?

To protect itself from those who would seek to harm others through fear of the punishment itself, or disposing of the offender thus ensuring the prevention of any further such actions?


Both of these reasons, anyone who takes life should give it in return, simply languishing in jail at the expense of the society to whom you owe such debt is ridiculous.

Well this is the problem with capital punishment as a practice. The vast preponderance of evidence shows that it isn't effective as a deterrent; actually very much the contrary. And as to protecting the society from dangerous individuals, life imprisonment is just as effective as capital punishment but without the negative consequences and the moral contradiction of trying to right a wrong with another wrong; hence accepting a situation where the heinous act of murder is suddenly acceptable by society.

The logic of an eye for an eye is faulty at best as it can never consistently be carried out, or we'd have to rape the rapists, torture the torturers and kill serial killers more than once.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Durden
The logic of an eye for an eye is faulty at best as it can never consistently be carried out, or we'd have to rape the rapists, torture the torturers and kill serial killers more than once.



I suppose it depends on how society views 'the death penalty'. Is it really an "eye for an eye" if it's to protect society from it's worst perpetrators? I believe the way the state puts the criminal to death is actually pretty 'humane', much like euthanasia in a vet's office.

So, are we punishing or protecting?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Well this is the problem with capital punishment as a practice. The vast preponderance of evidence shows that it isn't effective as a deterrent; actually very much the contrary


Durden mate I understand what your saying about effective deterrent, however in that regard I was referring to the prospect of facing the remainder of your life as a human guinea pig. I beleive this would indeed be effect as deterrent. Have you any idea what kind of mindless cruelty passes for research on animals? No pain relif, invasive techniques, and finally vivisection. Pretty good deterent i say.
As far as moral delemas concerned, thats laughable if you consider whats officially sanctioned and supported by folk already. I dont think I need post examples?


So am I to understand your opinion to be that there really is no significant correlation between crime rate and the manner in which society chooses to punish its citizens?


I beleive their is much significance Durden, in as much as jail further harderns crims and does not alone serve as deterent to crime. Surely the fact that crime continues to escalate proves the system of incarceration alone is both ineffective and a waste of taxpayers dollars.. Hence my suggestions above.

[edit on 093131p://24129 by instar]

[edit on 093131p://24129 by instar]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes
I suppose it depends on how society views 'the death penalty'. Is it really an "eye for an eye" if it's to protect society from it's worst perpetrators? I believe the way the state puts the criminal to death is actually pretty 'humane', much like euthanasia in a vet's office.


Well again, if the goal is to protect society from dangerous individuals, life imprisonment is just as effective as capital punishment.

Calling legalized murder a 'humane' form of punishment is way off the mark as this implies that the actual act of legalized murder is humane. One also has to consider the implications of death row and waiting to be executed; not only whether the actual manner of killing is painful.

I'll use a quote by Camus here:

"For there to be equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him and who, from that moment onward, had confined him at his mercy for months."



So, are we punishing or protecting?

Well the justice system is created to do both; which carries sound logic, IMO.


Originally posted by instar
Durden mate I understand what your saying about effective deterrent, however in that regard I was referring to the prospect of facing the remainder of your life as a human guinea pig. I beleive this would indeed be effect as deterrent. Have you any idea what kind of mindless cruelty passes for research on animals? No pain relif, invasive techniques, and finally vivisection.

This suggestion I find hard to take seriously as it would go beyond cruel and unusual punishment which really shouldn't be accepted in a civilized society.


Pretty good deterent i say.

I doubt it. If it were though, it simply can't be considered morally justifiable as it is a clear violation of human rights.


As far as moral delemas concerned, thats laughable if you consider whats officially sanctioned and supported by folk already. I dont think I need post examples?

Actually, I'd like an example so as to know exactly what you're referring to.


I beleive their is much significance Durden, in as much as jail further harderns crims and does not alone serve as deterent to crime. Surely the fact that crime continues to escalate proves the system of incarceration alone is both ineffective and a waste of taxpayers dollars.. Hence my suggestions above.

Well I hardly find it a sound suggestion to cure a failing prison system by using it's inmates as guinea pigs.


And as to cost, I would also that capital punishment as a practice is far more costly than life imprisonment.

EDIT: sp

[edit on 14-12-2004 by Durden]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 10:16 AM
link   

This suggestion I find hard to take seriously as it would go beyond cruel and unusual punishment which really shouldn't be accepted in a civilized society.


I doubt it. If it were though, it simply can't be considered morally justifiable as it is a clear violation of human rights.



LMAO and murder and rape are not a serious violition of human rights?


Id like an example


How about the bombing deaths of civilians in iraq? how about dropping an A bomb on nagasaki and hiroshima? How about keeping folk on death row waiting for years in the first place?


And as to cost, I would also that capital punishment as a practice is far more costly than life imprisonment.




Thats only because you keep them on death row for years at the taxpayers expense. Sentence should be immediate after conviction . How much to pump drugs into the scum? how much to keep them incarcerated and fed for 10 years? do the math.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar
LMAO and murder and rape are not a serious violition of human rights?

Again, this is an attempt to punish a perpetrator of a heinous act with an equally heinous act, in short; attempting to right a wrong with another wrong and essentially legalizing the heinous act of murder and repeating the very act perpetrated in the first place. Hardly sound reasoning. Society also has an obligation as a role model. To abolish heinous acts can hardly be morally justified by repeating those acts in the name of the law.


How about the bombing deaths of civilians in iraq? how about dropping an A bomb on nagasaki and hiroshima?

Are you actually using the Hiroshima bombing to justify capital punishment? That just doesn't make any sense.



How about keeping folk on death row waiting for years in the first place?

Clearly, this would not be a reality in a society that abolishes the act of legalized murder.


Thats only because you keep them on death row for years at the taxpayers expense. Sentence should be immediate after conviction . How much to pump drugs into the scum? how much to keep them incarcerated and fed for 10 years? do the math.

This could not be carried through without also accepting to abandon the crucial safeguards and constitutional rights of suspects, defendants and convicts, hence in effect risking that an even larger number of innocents be convicted and executed. That can hardly be accepted to justify cost reduction in capital cases.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   
So lets here your wisdom on how to make it all work Durden. What will you do with rapist, murderers etc? Please tell us all how you will rehabilitate them and be perfectly moral at the same time? What will you tell mothers and fathers, daughters, sons, who are victims of the scum your trying to rehabiltate? hes a good boy now, hes on meds, he says he wont do it again? give us some real ideas please, youve put down mine, so lay yours on the table.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Society has created these people, some may say they are responsible for dealing with them as peacefully as possible



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzpatrick
Society has created these people, some may say they are responsible for dealing with them as peacefully as possible


Indeed i agree society is to blame. but how will you deal with them peacefully? Bearing in mind of cousre the old saying, a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but now that "cure" is nessesary, what will it be?



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by instar
So lets here your wisdom on how to make it all work Durden. What will you do with rapist, murderers etc? Please tell us all how you will rehabilitate them and be perfectly moral at the same time? What will you tell mothers and fathers, daughters, sons, who are victims of the scum your trying to rehabiltate? hes a good boy now, hes on meds, he says he wont do it again? give us some real ideas please, youve put down mine, so lay yours on the table.

Well if I did have all the answers, I'd probably be a rich man by now. However I would say that society does have an important obligation as a role model as I would say there is definitely a correlation between the acts of a society's leadership and it citizens.

As Mako pointed out earlier in this thread, Criminal sanctions in the United States have four goals:


1: Retribution: Focuses on the harmful act of the offender. Deserved punishment, offender's must "pay their debts".

2: Deterrence: 2 types= general and special. In general deterrence, this is used to impress upon the general public if they commit a crime, they will be caught, prosecuted and given a specific punishment. In special deterrence this type of punishment is used by the courts to deter the offender from repeating the offense.

3: Incapacitation: Focuses on the potential future acts of the offender. Any sentence which restricts the offender and are future oriented. An offender is placed in a secure facility and prevented from inflicting additional harm to society for the duration of their sentence.

4: Rehabilitation: The goal is restoring a convicted offender to a constructive place in society by vocational or educational training or therapy. Here, offenders are treated, not punished, and they will return to society when "cured". The focus is on the offender.


When it comes to dangerous individuals that doesn't respond to treatment used to date, then clearly they should be kept locked up so as to not put other people in harms way but society shouldn't handle this problem by repeating the very act for which we're punishing these individuals.

Clearly, society also has an important obligation to keep its citizens safe. Evidence shows that states retaining the death penalty have a significantly larger rate of homicides than abolition states. It could even be argued that capital punishment actually works as an incentive for homicide. So when looking at it from that perspective, which obviously can't be ignored, to retain this type of punishment just doesn't make any sense.

EDIT: sp


[edit on 14-12-2004 by Durden]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Indeed i agree society is to blame. but how will you deal with them peacefully? Bearing in mind of cousre the old saying, a ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but now that "cure" is nessesary, what will it be?

Well i think the prison system in its present state is wrong. Just locking them up is a bad idea.

They should be more focused on rehilbiltation.
getting some of the focused on buddhism has been said to work



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 11:37 AM
link   

When it comes to dangerous individuals that doesn't respond to treatment used to date, then clearly they should be kept locked up so as to not put other people in harms way but society shouldn't handle this problem by repeating the very act for which we're punishing these individuals.

Clearly, society also has an important obligation to keep its citizens safe. Evidence shows that states retaining the death penalty has a significantly larger rate of homicides than abolition states. It could even be argued that captial punishment could actually works as an incentive for homicide. So when looking at it from that perspective, which obviously can't be ignored, to retain this type of punishment just doesn't make any sense.



ok. so you advocate continuation of the current system of incarceration.
You still dont offer any suggestions how to rehabitlitate these people.
Even you agree incarceration does not rehabilitate? They get out as more hardened crims than they went in and commit further crime. So if you dont want to "punish", whats your solution?
incarceration is harldy punishment either, they get three meals a day, they get tv, videos you name it, not top mention drugs more freely avail inside to support their habits (if they dont have a habit when they go in, they do when they get out) and that habit leads to more crime. The system isnt working is it!
The moral high horse is all good and well, but we are just perpetuating crime with the current system. You either put your foot down and get tough or you may aswell let them do as they like evermore. Murder and rapes and other violent crimes have to stop, no ifs buts or maybes.
Again, you shoot down my suggestions but avoid making your own.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I agree prisons should have no luxurys atall. A libary fine ill have that.

Suggections of things that should happen drug users instantly rehibalitation camp.

Whoes seen bad lads army- have a lot more of that.

Spiritual schools out in the countryside on islands etc. They aint getting away until they change.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar
ok. so you advocate continuation of the current system of incarceration.

Absolutely, if the only alternative is to accept acts of torture and/or murder in the name of the law.
However I'm not saying that the current system is flawless; far from it.


You still dont offer any suggestions how to rehabitlitate these people.
Even you agree incarceration does not rehabilitate? They get out as more hardened crims than they went in and commit further crime. So if you dont want to "punish", whats your solution?

I don't claim to have all the answers here, nor have I ever said I did. I also never said criminals shouldn't be punished. I would definitely advocate a continous effort to improve what is done today and change that which proves ineffective; as long as this is done through careful moral scrutiny.


incarceration is harldy punishment either, they get three meals a day, they get tv, videos you name it, not top mention drugs more freely avail inside to support their habits (if they dont have a habit when they go in, they do when they get out) and that habit leads to more crime.

As to whether incarceration is to be considered punishment, I'd say that could be debated. Surely the level of punishment this serves depends on the environment where time is served.


The system isnt working is it!

Like I've stated earlier. There are a number of problems with the current system which is why there is a need for a continous effort to improve it; not make it even worse.


The moral high horse is all good and well, but we are just perpetuating crime with the current system. You either put your foot down and get tough or you may aswell let them do as they like evermore. Murder and rapes and other violent crimes have to stop, no ifs buts or maybes.
Again, you shoot down my suggestions but avoid making your own.

Again, the vast preponderance of evidence shows that capital punishment states - who are 'putting the foot down', so to speak, have an even larger number of homicides than abolition states. So I would argue that capital punishment is what actually perpetuates murder.



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Again, the vast preponderance of evidence shows that capital punishment states - who are 'putting the foot down', so to speak, have an even larger number of homicides than abolition states. So I would argue that capital punishment is what actually perpetuates murder.



Can you explain why you think thats the case? folk think , if i kill someone, ill die, so i might aswell kill someone? I cant agree with that. folk dont kill folk because the punishment is the same as the crime. where is the reasoning in that? Whos says a murderous scumbag considers the consequences at all? I bet if you knew you would face being a human guineapig, you would think twice before killing someone (unless you beleived you wopuld not be caught).
Again, if you dont beleive thats the way to go, then whats your idea for improvement ? how can you possibly deter crime without harsh punishment? (again barring society getting its act together by way of prevention through education and moral disciplan) Which doesent solve the problem in the short term. You argue the issue in clinical manner from the moral highground, thats good, however, victims of these scumbags, infact most of society i think, certainly wont give a toss about morals because human emotion comes into it, its unavoidable if your child is raped and murdered by some scum, very few will will hold your veiws when it becomes personal, including yourself, i beleive, and if thats not the case with you, im very impressed you've managed to grow above base human emotion, this must make you almost a diety.
once more.........do you care to toss about a few ideas of your own? thats what the forum is for afterall. If you can come up with a solution that the masses will accept, that will work, and hold the moral highground to boot, then id love to hear it.


I must have missed this....

quote: How about the bombing deaths of civilians in iraq? how about dropping an A bomb on nagasaki and hiroshima?
Are you actually using the Hiroshima bombing to justify capital punishment? That just doesn't make any sense.


I was saying that that event an others are far worse than the death penalty, and sactioned and supported , yet the victims were innocent people.
The "victims" of the death penalty are scum, who robbed innocent folk of their dignaty and their lives.
Yes i think the death penalty is justified for these scum. yes indeed. Of course you beleive "we should pay" to keep these scum alive and fed. I say they forfeited their human rights when they violate the human rights of others. I resent my tax dollars paying for their food and medical needs.
Until such time as a utopia without such crimes exist, we need the death penalty to prevent re-offence. too many get parole from bleeding heart authorities and go out and rape and kill again. But until you can come up with a plan for such utopia, I say they should be giving something tangible back to the society, not just their absence from it. I do not beleive
that the likes of these scum can ever "see the light" and be rehabilitated.

Its easy to shout "nay" from the windows of the ivory tower, but alot harder to come up with a solution. If the death penalty wont deter, then what will? lets here some ideas please.

[edit on 023131p://15122 by instar]



posted on Dec, 14 2004 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by instar
Can you explain why you think thats the case? folk think , if i kill someone, ill die, so i might aswell kill someone? I cant agree with that. folk dont kill folk because the punishment is the same as the crime.

You want an explanation for my reasoning? I'm going to have to rehash what's been thoroughly covered earlier in this thread here...

Actually evidence supports my argument:


When comparisons are made between states with the death penalty and states without, the majority of death penalty states show murder rates higher than non-death penalty states. The average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5, whereas the average of murder rates among non-death penalty states was only 3.6.

A look at neighboring death penalty and non-death penalty states show similar trends. Death penalty states usually have a higher murder rate than their neighboring non-death penalty states.

The following figures exclude Kansas and New York, which adopted the death penalty in 1994 and 1995 respectively. If these states are included in their proper categories, the results are even more dramatic:

As executions rose, states without the death penalty fared much better than states with the death penalty in reducing their murder rates. The gap between the murder rate in death penalty states and the non-death penalty states grew larger (as shown in Chart II). In 1990, the murder rates in these two groups were 4% apart. By 2000, the murder rate in the death penalty states was 35% higher than the rate in states without the death penalty. In 2001, the gap between non-death penalty states and states with the death penalty again grew, reaching 37%. For 2002, the number stands at 36%. (1)


And here is even more recent information on murder rates in the U.S. (including New York and Kansas): Average of murder rates among death penalty states per 100,000 population in 2002: 5.2. Average of murder rates among non-death penalty states in 2002: 2.8 (2).

And to quote what I've presented earlier in this thread:


Originally posted by Durden
Furthermore, there is no evidence supporting the use of capital punishment as a more successful deterrent than life imprisonment. According to Uniform Crime Reports (annually, 1980-89), during the 80's, death-penalty states in the US annually averaged a rate of 7.5 criminal homicides per 100,000 of populaiton whereas the average rate of states abolishing death penalty was 7.4 (3).

In another comparison, according to data released by the British Home Office, US murder rate greatly exceeds European non-death penalty nations (4).

In certain cases, capital punishment may even be an incitement to acts of criminal violence. There is also evidence pointing to death-penalty states having an increased rate of homicide when executions are carried through. According to "Deterrence of Brutalizaition," by Bowers and Pierce in Crime & Delinquency (1980), in New York, between 1907 and 1964, 692 individuals were executed. In this 57-year period, one or more executions on a given month resulted in an increase of two homicides being commited the following month (5).



Originally posted by instar
I bet if you knew you would face being a human guineapig, you would think twice before killing someone (unless you beleived you wopuld not be caught).

Again this reasoning essentially supports the use of torture in an effort to deter crime. If you don't see the problem with such a heinous manner of punishment, well then there is really nothing I can tell you.



Again, if you dont beleive thats the way to go, then whats your idea for improvement ? how can you possibly deter crime without harsh punishment?

See above.


You argue the issue in clinical manner from the moral highground, thats good, however, victims of these scumbags, infact most of society i think, certainly wont give a toss about morals because human emotion comes into it, its unavoidable if your child is raped and murdered by some scum, very few will will hold your veiws when it becomes personal, including yourself, i beleive, and if thats not the case with you, im very impressed you've managed to grow above base human emotion, this must make you almost a diety.

It is a mistake to believe that all murder victims share the feeling that they cannot rest until the perpetrator of a heinous crime is executed. And I'll once again rehash what's been stated earlier as to what was said by a famous victim of heinous crimes, Coretta Scott King:

"As one whose husband and mother-in-law have died the victims of murder assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses. An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the tacking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder."(6)

Also don't make the mistake of believing capital punishment can be used as support and/or treatment of surviving victims. That is a completely different issue.

Personally, I admit to be a type of person who initially would probably want retribution. If I caught the perpetrator at that moment, I'd probably also take care of it myself. However, I would not want to live in a society which promotes the act of murder - absolutely not.


once more.........do you care to toss about a few ideas of your own? thats what the forum is for afterall. If you can come up with a solution that the masses will accept, that will work, and hold the moral highground to boot, then id love to hear it.

I don't see what you think I'm going to tell you here as I've already stated my points and why I feel the way I do on this issue. I also didn't notice the "state your brand new fail-safe ideas on treatment of dangerous criminals" in the thread-title.
I think the actual topic was whether capital punishment should be considered cruel and unusual.

But again, evidence shows that capital punishment not only is ineffective as a deterrent but actually very much the contrary. (1,2) It also shows that capital punishment as a practice is far more expensive than life imprisonment. (7) Isn't it logical to make sure that crime rate be kept as low as possible? Or are you willing to accept the additional increased homicidal rate as a consequence of acting on blood thirst and a need for violent retaliation? And we haven't even touched the problem of innocents being executed or the inconsistency in which the practice is applied.



The "victims" of the death penalty are scum, who robbed innocent folk of their dignaty and their lives.
Yes i think the death penalty is justified for these scum. yes indeed. Of course you beleive "we should pay" to keep these scum alive and fed. I say they forfeited their human rights when they violate the human rights of others. I resent my tax dollars paying for their food and medical needs.

Well first off, thinking that the argument against capital punishment arises from some misplaced sympathy for convicted killers is nothing but a complete misinterpretation of the argument. Actually it is very much the contrary; the act of murder is a demonstration of a lack of respect for human life. Which is why murder is and should be considered abhorrent which would also make state-authorized murder immoral.


Until such time as a utopia without such crimes exist, we need the death penalty to prevent re-offence. too many get parole from bleeding heart authorities and go out and rape and kill again.

Again. Life without possibility of parole would solve this problem - without the negative aspects of capital punishment.


But until you can come up with a plan for such utopia, I say they should be giving something tangible back to the society, not just their absence from it. I do not beleive
that the likes of these scum can ever "see the light" and be rehabilitated.

And giving something 'tangible' back would be to have them murdered right back?


If the death penalty wont deter, then what will? lets here some ideas please.

What you should be asking is if capital punishment shows to not deter but actually increase the murder rate where it is retained as opposed to where it's abolished - should it still be kept as a practice?

IMO, capital punishment is a relic of a time when torture, slavery, witch-hunts and other barbaric practices were common. Such practices should absolutely have no place whatsoever in a civilized society.

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

(1) Source of stats: FBI Uniform Crime Statistics (2002) presented here.

(2) FBI Uniform Crime Statistics for 2002 (Published October, 2003)

(3)Link

(4)Link

(5)Link

(6) Speech to National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Washington, D.C., September 26, 1981.

(7) Information on Costs of the Death Penalty From DPIC

[edit on 14-12-2004 by Durden]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join