|
| Thread: Death penalty yes or no? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted August 09, 2014 06:47 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 18:50, 09 Aug 2014.
|
@JJ
Well, there's no secret formula that will vanish crime completely. In terms of neutralizing and isolating danger and having a deterrent effect to some degree, I dont think there is a feasible alternative to prison. If you are seriously suggesting torture, it would only make things worse, the criminals will be out in public again and their psychology will be more messed up than ever and regular citizens will percieve the state as a cruel, brutal mechanism.
Exile to wasteland island 
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 07:09 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Isn't that question valid for all prisoners then? Why should the tax payers fund the cost of thieves, gangsters, burglars, rapists, child molesters, arsonists, thugs? Anyone who'll do serious time inside and most probably wont be getting out as a productive member of society can be seen as useless expenditure. Should we line them all up and call the firing squad?
It's the price you pay for a system that values human life.
The price is too high, besides, I don't believe in prisons, I believe in the idea of separating anti-social people from society, those who do not adhere to the rules of the nation, but what I do not believe in is them becoming a greater burden on law abiding citizens, and inhumane incarceration. Deportation and permanent exclusion from the country on the other hand was a very humane and forward thinking move imho of the British Empire.
Obviously you can't deport petty criminals, what it would target is those who are career ones. (thieves, drug users and general nuisances) Petty criminals would have restricted freedoms, like name and shame, curfews, and restricted public access. Ability to comply would see the ban lifted. For example, a drunken brawler would ordinarily be thrown in jail for battery (if not serious) for a couple of months, or weeks depending on sentencing, the guy/woman (most likely a guy in this case) would probably lose his job, his home if he had a mortgage, all for nothing really, just so that the system can pretend to dispense justice. But, if he was banned from consuming alcohol, or his allowance was limited then that would get more to the heart of the problem imho. (which is done atm in England, but unfortunately limited, I studied sentencing, but judges tend to prefer deterrence) Of course the point is to give people a chance to get their act together, failure to do so would be seen as a wish to stick to their anti-social lifestyle, and thus be excluded from society.
It's just an idea, but I'm firm on my stance that prisons as they are cannot be allowed to continue, and the end result imo should be to abolish the institution altogether. (lol establishment )
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 07:16 PM |
|
|
Stevie said:
blizzardboy said:
Developing countries: yes
wealthy countries: no
Sanctity of life decided by wealth. Spoken like a true capitalist. Why am I not surprised?
It depends on what your reasons are. I believe it is appropriate for a murderer or mob boss to die, and the wealth & stability of the nation is irrelevant to that. However, committing a certain action - even if it is acceptable by itself - ceases to be acceptable if it comes at the great expense of the innocent. This is critical.
The are numerous reasons for why capital punishment is more sensible for less developed nations. Perhaps the foremost among them is the issue of corruption within police, agencies, and government in general. If jailing dangerous & severely harmful people (murderers, mob bosses, druglords, etc.) comes at a great risk of escape or eventual underhanded release through legal channels because of corruption or even fear within the police and courts, then you kill them when you have the chance. You don't have the luxury to ask other higher-end questions that a more developed society would ask. This was the reality for every single country - without exception - that eventually removed capital punishment, and it remains the reality for developing nations that still have it. As a society becomes increasingly stable, and the rule of law more reliable, you instead start to question the issues of allowing a state to wield that kind of power, or of its irreversibility, or of its complications, or the message it sends to the public when you easily have the capacity to pursue alternative methods. At some point, you remove it, because it has become a system where the appropriate death of a person comes as an expense to others, and that is not acceptable.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 07:20 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:45, 09 Aug 2014.
|
@Tsar
Well, I remember reading Papillon and my impression of those islands were not so good, they were a type of prison themselves. It's not like they dropped off the convicts and let them organize their own society like in Escape from New York (the 1981 Kurt Russel movie where Manhattan is transformed into an exile island for ruthless criminals, in case you havent seen it.)
@ blizz
That's quite a flawed reasoning. People of such power and influance nevet get the death penalty to begin with. In most cases, they dont do the dirty work themselves anyway. Have you ever heard of a mob boss who was convicted to death? Al Capone, Luciano, John Gotti, the Gambinos... They all got caught at some point but death penalty was never the case.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 07:29 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 19:31, 09 Aug 2014.
|
In countries like mine where the judicial system is a corrupt mockery of its alleged ideals this question has no answer because the judicial system is a corrupt mockery of its alleged ideals. The regular citizen doesn't trust the courts in most scenarios, especially when "major" criminals are prosecuted, so whatever the outcome is, there will always be doubt that someone paid for it or blackmailed someone involved, whatever. Low-end sentences are usually OK but death penalty hardly falls into that category.
In general, the death sentence's attractive sides from social perspective are mostly related to less money going for the sustenance of convicts. Nobody is incredibly fond of paying taxes, especially when they are used to feed and guard people with anti-social behaviour. From that perspective, the life sentences are a real crap, even more in poor countries. One can also argue that a death sentence is actually not the worst sentence that can be given to an individual. Life imprisonment - provided that the convict indeed stays in prison for life - could be much harsher a penalty for certain people. And of course, death sentences keep the prisons somewhat less populated.
The other side of the coin has already been mentioned. Assuming an imperfect judicial system - and every such system is imperfect because it's composed of humans - it is not unlikely, nor unseen to have an innocent person put to death. In a corrupt environment it is quite likely that the one who ultimately gets hanged/shot/injected with something lethal is actually a scapegoat while the real criminal walks free. That alone is quite enough to make the death sentence unacceptable for the society as a whole.
What I think is that a society which has functional state institutions, a law system which protects well the rights of the individual, and has relatively low corruption levels can have a death sentence because the amount of "incorrect" such sentences will be quite low. This hardly means that even the most advanced countries nowadays qualify though. At the moment the probability for human error or "guided" court decisions is unacceptably high so I'm mostly against that sort of punishment.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 07:38 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 19:40, 09 Aug 2014.
|
artu said:
Isn't that question valid for all prisoners then? Why should the tax payers fund the cost of thieves, gangsters, burglars, rapists, child molesters, arsonists, thugs? Anyone who'll do serious time inside and most probably wont be getting out as a productive member of society can be seen as useless expenditure. Should we line them all up and call the firing squad?
It's the price you pay for a system that values human life.
actually that's somehow surprising from a system that seems to value money much more than people (though it's a system made of people)
but maybe it isn't about the effect of prisons on prisoners, but on all other citizens?
maybe it is a good way to control a population and is deemed worth the price. that makes me think of all those things that politicians propose to increase our feeling of security, like cameras for example and that some people see as a hint of totalitarianism.
Quote:
Deportation and permanent exclusion from the country on the other hand was a very humane and forward thinking move imho of the British Empire.
would that means loss of nationality? I'm not sure it would be very humane, I'm not even sure you are considered human anymore without a nationality.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 07:48 PM |
|
|
artu said:
@ blizz
That's quite a flawed reasoning. People of such power and influance nevet get the death penalty to begin with. In most cases, they dont do the dirty work themselves anyway. Have you ever heard of a mob boss who was convicted to death? Al Capone, Luciano, John Gotti, the Gambinos... They all got caught atsome point but death penalty was never the case.
Tell that to Chinese drug dealers. When they get caught, they die.
The situation in America is peculiar and more of an exception to the norm. It had a rule of law in the early 20th century that was highly advanced in its efficacy, but capital punishment remains contentious even in the 21st century, long after in theory it could have been removed. My personal theory is that it's because American culture has never experienced grand scale executions in its own borders, or from a monarch; the viscerally negative reaction to it doesn't exist in its cultural mindset as it would for almost anywhere else. When a person discusses the matter with a US citizen, there's a good chance they'll find themselves frustrated with their inability to resonate with them. It's still more naive in its appetite for blood, like an unharmed adolescent boy playing with fire and not appreciating what it is that he is wielding, because he has never experienced its lick. For the famous mob bosses that never died, it was because of the issue of evidence (again, the US had a very strong and efficacious justice system in place. The rule of law was respected and feared, but capital punishment didn't erode like it did in Europe) After WW2, capital punishment only survived in Europe for a few decades before it sputtered out, and even after WW1 - allegedly the last great war - the issue of a state wielding life and death started becoming more contentious.
It doesn't necessarily relate to just the influential (although that is a stronger example). Just in general, when there's a high degree of underhandedness, bribery, or fear in the justice & penal system, you're going to have an extremely difficult time convincing people to quarantine people versus executing them when the opportunity presents itself.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 07:55 PM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
In general, the death sentence's attractive sides from social perspective are mostly related to less money going for the sustenance of convicts. Nobody is incredibly fond of paying taxes, especially when they are used to feed and guard people with anti-social behaviour.
they still cost less than banksters
Zenofex said:
The other side of the coin has already been mentioned. Assuming an imperfect judicial system - and every such system is imperfect because it's composed of humans - it is not unlikely, nor unseen to have an innocent person put to death. In a corrupt environment it is quite likely that the one who ultimately gets hanged/shot/injected with something lethal is actually a scapegoat while the real criminal walks free. That alone is quite enough to make the death sentence unacceptable for the society as a whole.
I read something recently about how some societies prefered killing scapegoats instead of real justice, because it was an easy way to appease citizens. though of course, they had to believe the condemned was really guilty.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 08:01 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 20:03, 09 Aug 2014.
|
@blizz
Yeah, the Chinese are quite old-school about that. They shoot the guys in a stadium in front of the crowd. But then, they have a very peculiar history about drug trade and I'd say they are the exception. We had death penalty here, until 2001 or 2002 or something and I have never heard of a mob boss executed, ever.
It still seems unlikely to me that after getting convicted, someone with a serious crime (a crime that would get him executed had there been the death penalty) would be able to bribe his way out of jail. The regular way if you have that kind of gravitas, is to make sure you don't get convicted, which makes it irrelevant to the issue of death penalty.
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 09:06 PM |
|
|
I figure your arguments involve a lot of ifs and maybes and deal with specific situations, blizz. But if there were no such circumstances and justice could be exacted without fear of any repercussions, what would give you the authority to take away someone's right to live?
Because I'm a Christian, I believe that no one has the authority over someone's else's life except God. No matter how many crimes someone committed or how grave they were, a punishment should never involve death. Otherwise you become a criminal yourself even though it's in the name of justice.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 09:23 PM |
|
|
|
Oh, how I wish Elodin was here now... or maybe not.
|
|
kayna
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted August 09, 2014 10:10 PM |
|
|
I am for death penalty for extreme cases with irrefutable proof only.
I believe the no death penalty stance is decided by our rulers because of how it makes them look on a political level, not because they truly believe in it. A country without death penalty can point his finger at another that doesn't uphold such and say how horrible they are. Truth is, keeping a guy in jail forever is a luxury, and if we suddenly lost our wealth, the death penalty would be reinstated to save money and man power.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2014 04:31 AM |
|
|
|
with loss of wealth and thus power, law authorities would be severely weakened and I'm not sure death penalty would be enough if armed group rise to take the power, in that case it would be shoot on sight. (which btw, is legal according to european constitution, death penalty is illegal, but fighting an insurrection with deadly force isn't)
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2014 09:53 AM |
|
|
artu said:
@JJ
Well, there's no secret formula that will vanish crime completely. In terms of neutralizing and isolating danger and having a deterrent effect to some degree, I dont think there is a feasible alternative to prison. If you are seriously suggesting torture, it would only make things worse, the criminals will be out in public again and their psychology will be more messed up than ever and regular citizens will percieve the state as a cruel, brutal mechanism.
Exile to wasteland island
I wasn't talking about making crime vasnish. If you'd want crime to vanish, you'd have to start with decriminalizing "human desires" - sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll gambling for obvious reasons -, so sillily called "vices". No, that's not the point. "Crime" won't vanish anyway.
People should stop talking about "justice", because justice isn't existing - not in this world, at least, that is, the world I live in - because who would be in a position to say that something was "just"?
We have laws and we have a law enforcement, and we must decide what we do with those who break the laws - it's not that different from parent having children: there will be rules, and they have to think about what they should do if children break the rules.
In any case, it's a practical problem.
Robbing people their freedom for a long time is pretty much the worst solution possible for a lot of reasons, starting with the fact that itz makes no sense to have criminals together in a quasi society. In some countries you might think society is apologizing for having people put to jail, so often it's about HUMAN correction facilities - but the truth is, it has nothing to do with justice, it's basically confinment to child's room - and that's not even working for children.
The trouble is, that society isn't really putting any effort into solving the problem. There is too much of a taboo around all this. People are not born as criminals, and in most cases society is guilty as well. We need better solutions. Prison is just deepening the trench between criminal and society, it costs a lot of money and it serves no positive purpose. We are in dire need of alternatives
and the death penalty is none, that should be clear, history having proven it beyond any doubt.
It may sound like science fiction - and some evil society as well -, but the solution in the future might envolve something like a memory wipe. Complete with erasing parts of the personality structure. Inhuman? Maybe. What if, you are a hopeless addict, though, for example?
In any case, and that's the question here, putting people to death for their crimes is just upping the ante in the crime business.
You could at least make a sporting fight out of it: something like the hunger games, only with death row candidates, winner gains freedom. Might make some money, having high TV ratings.
Though, come to think of it, might be too much of an encourangement: you don't want petty criminals suddenly killing people just to become a star. So, no, too glorious.
And if that sounds absurd - isn't that what happens, actually, in these high security prisons where the heavies are?
As long as we are so limited - we can't do justice: a grown-up criminal is no child anymore and we can't give them their lost childhood back when things probably went wrong - the only way to go is to either reform them or break them, breaking them obviously being the tough thing to do everyone cringes from.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted August 10, 2014 03:38 PM |
|
|
JJ just figured it out - the secret to end crime is to decriminalize everything. Brilliant! 
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted August 10, 2014 03:59 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 10, 2014 04:39 PM |
|
|
Corribus said:
JJ just figured it out - the secret to end crime is to decriminalize everything. Brilliant!
I don't think that is funny - the, well, silliness of that remark in the face of the actual post is something I wouldn't have expected from someone like you. More like, well, never mind.
I suppose, I've had my share of silly remarks as well.
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted August 11, 2014 10:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Deportation and permanent exclusion from the country on the other hand was a very humane and forward thinking move imho of the British Empire.
I think it was a very practical move that allowed for a cleaner home isle, as well as faster colonization via throwing everything from rapists to political undesirables across the globe, at the huge chunks of unforgiving landscape left behind by rapidly exterminated natives who could really do jack shyte about the whole humane and forward thinking ordeal.
|
|
Doomhammer
Known Hero
Smasher of pasties
|
|
posted September 26, 2014 12:58 PM |
|
|
My personal opinion is yes there should be a death penalty but only for extreme cases, for example convicted violent killers, extreme terrorism, rapists something like that. This however should only happen if there is no doubt of guilt - undeniable evidence.
The world would be a much better place without these monsters, prisons would be less populated and therefore cost less to run, some of these criminals cost countries millions in appeal cort cases and special treatment during their long jail sentences. That money could be better spent on other more important issues. They usually don't have anything good to further offer society and will never change. The world is over-populated enough as it is.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2014 02:06 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 14:07, 26 Sep 2014.
|
I study criminology and there's pretty much nothing that suggests that the death penalty is an effective deterrent against crime. There's also the problem with innocence (what if the guy that get's executed is proven innocent?) and I'm ideologically opposed to giving the state a warrant to murder people.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
| |
|
|
