|
| Thread: Death Penalty? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
RMS
Responsible
Legendary Hero
-ing yummy foods
|
posted September 28, 2002 08:19 PM |
|
|
...all prisoners everywhere should have to work 23 hours a day, nonstop in order to carve little wooden reindeers with toothpicks, and sew together teddybears to give to all the poor little children throughout the world...
____________
This space for rent.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted September 28, 2002 10:49 PM |
|
|
...and eventually they would die of exhaustion. Too bad.
____________
|
|
Largo_LeGrande
Promising
Known Hero
from the Carribean
|
|
posted September 29, 2002 09:44 AM |
|
|
Like I said in Malice's thread: punishments that tries to scare the criminals just don't work. Just im Gegentail; the crimes will be a lot of tougher. If we rise the criminals to their legs by giving them a job and a little place to live, show they what is the world like if you don't do crimes... I dunno. Sociopaths and psychopaths should be locked in those maniac place of course.
____________
 -Largo has spoken-
|
|
2XtremeToTake
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 29, 2002 09:47 AM |
|
|
RMS......you ok??
____________
I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
|
|
johnsone79
Hired Hero
|
|
posted September 30, 2002 01:45 AM |
|
|
First of all, hanging is not that old. It is still on the lawbooks of some states as a legal form of death penalty. Now on to the greater implications. As you may have heard many people on death row of late have been released because after being found guilty by a jury of their peers evidence came to light that they were innocent and in no way could have committed the crime. I would be much more careful what I wish for. If the death penalty is brought back into common use, it just might be you that is falsly accused. With fast tracked executions you may not even have the chance to be found innocent. In fact I believe we should start the preemptive executions. I hold that we should immediately kill all people that will some day kill someone. I nominate those in this thread who have supported the death penalty to become the first executioners. Since being an executioner means you will kill someone, then I suggest you all get around to killing each other so that no one else needs to be preemptively killed.
In case you haven't noticed, even with religion set aside, killing is not right. There is no moral way for one person to kill another. How do you plan to execute these people without creating another killer. I understand criminals are not the most pleasant of folk and that they put a drain on our societal resources, but killing is not the answer. Look where killing has gotten Israel. Palestinians kill Israelis because Israelis killed Palestinians, then some Israelis kill some Palestinians for killing those Israelis. There are better solutions for everything than killing. If we put some resources into preventative measures such as social welfare and education we could reduce the number of people in prison by removing the force that drives people to criminal action. The cost of keeping the few sociopaths in institutions for a lifetime is a small price to pay to help stop the killing cycle. Maybe if we put forth a stronger image that killing of any kind is wrong and unjustified, fewer children would grow up to become killers.
____________
|
|
Oldtimer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Please leave a message after..
|
|
posted October 01, 2002 12:27 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There is no moral way for one person to kill another.
Let's see if this statement is true...
If someone is attacking my family and I kill him in defence of others, well that's moral.
If a policeman kills a criminal that is endangering the public, well that's moral too.
Hey, that soldier killing an enemy across the battlefeild, he's involved in moral killing.
Your parent is in the last stages of a very painful disease and the doctor helps them end the pain faster, that sounds morally right.
Conversely if you have the opportunity to stop someone before they murder and rape a child, and you don't...then it's immoral of you to not kill him.
Morals are what society says they are and if the society says the somepeople that do truelly horrible things to people forfiet their right to live, then executing them is perfectly moral.
____________
<PLEASE DO NOT WAKE THE OLD MAN!>
"Zzzz...Zzzz...Zzzz..."
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted October 01, 2002 12:33 AM |
|
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
|
posted November 17, 2003 03:08 PM |
|
|
This should be in the Monitor
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 27, 2003 08:12 PM |
|
|
This thread was made back in the day, before the Monitor was created. B.D. - Before Dingo 
____________
|
|
Dingo
Responsible
Legendary Hero
God of Dark SPAM
|
|
posted November 28, 2003 02:20 AM |
|
|
heh, it still should be moved.
____________
The Above Post/Thread/Idea Is CopyRighted by, The Dingo Corp.
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted November 28, 2003 04:36 AM |
|
|
This thread may have been before Dingo, but not before me!
*piercing maniacal laugh*
I think this thread belongs in The Other Side of The Monitor as well.
Isn't that right Hexa?
*does an impression of Hexa*
Quote:
Yeah that's right! It does belong in The Other Side!@
And guess what?!@ I am older than this thread, too!@
*piercing maniacal laugh!@*
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 28, 2003 05:06 AM |
|
|
That's fine I know it should be moved, but sadly I don't have that power. 
____________
|
|
RedSoxFan3
Admirable
Legendary Hero
Fan of Red Sox
|
|
posted November 28, 2003 05:15 AM |
|
|
*does an impression of Hexa*
Quote:
But I have the power to move it!@ MUAH-HA-HA!@
____________
Go Red Sox!
|
|
Sam_Sam
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted September 20, 2004 03:41 AM |
|
|
In my opinion the Death Penalty should be banned everywhere.
____________
The greatest Soccer player on the Planet
|
|
Defreni
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 20, 2004 11:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
There is no moral way for one person to kill another.
Let's see if this statement is true...
If someone is attacking my family and I kill him in defence of others, well that's moral.
If a policeman kills a criminal that is endangering the public, well that's moral too.
Hey, that soldier killing an enemy across the battlefeild, he's involved in moral killing.
Your parent is in the last stages of a very painful disease and the doctor helps them end the pain faster, that sounds morally right.
Conversely if you have the opportunity to stop someone before they murder and rape a child, and you don't...then it's immoral of you to not kill him.
Morals are what society says they are and if the society says the somepeople that do truelly horrible things to people forfiet their right to live, then executing them is perfectly moral.
Basically all your examples could be circumvented by pointing to the fact that in all cases it is possible to stop the situation by using non-lethal force.
Except off course in the example with soldiers. This example is also the most counter-intuitive of them all.
To quote Calvin from "Calvin & Hobbes": "Dad? How do soldiers killing eachother solve the worlds problems?"
Baiscally you make a circular moral argument here.
Quote:
Morals are what society says they are and if the society says the somepeople that do truelly horrible things to people forfiet their right to live, then executing them is perfectly moral.
It is morally acceptable to kill, because we say it is morally acceptable to kill.
Well what if we said it is morally unacceptable to kill?
There is alot of societies in the world where that notion is used. Are they wrong then?
If what you say is standing, then morals are a relative subject depending on which society you live in. Hence it is both perfectly morally acceptable to kill, and completely unacceptable at the same time.
Regards
Defreni
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted September 21, 2004 06:40 AM |
|
|
Worthy Yet Inappropriate
This is a good topic and I have some strong feelings about it but I think there's really too many young people that visit these forums to talk about such things.
I say let them be young while they can. I hope to keep things of this nature from the encouragable minds of the innocent.
This subject is far too real to discuss here.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted September 21, 2004 06:29 PM |
|
|
Wow, I made this topic back in the day...
What do you mean the topic is too real to discuss here? Other things that are just as real in my opinion have been discussed here.
Young people you say, I'm young, at least I was when I made this topic. I have strong views about the issue too. Feel free to say what you believe, that is why the topic was started afterall.
____________
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted September 21, 2004 06:45 PM |
|
|
I'll try not to pick on you today Wolfman.
Haven't you guys ever heard of the 8th amendment?
Man, I'm not even referencing it as a valid argument against capital punishment.
I'm talking about the buffoons who want to take us back to Rome.
Abu Graihb aside, I'm trying to distinguish myself from what I consider to be the primitive and savage cultures elsewhere around the world.
It really pains me to say this, but...
The Euros got this one right. Capital punishment is not a deterrent. It is irreversible. It is more what...8 to 14 times more expensive to kill a criminal in the U.S. than it is to put them away for life?
Your all-too-obvious retort is course going to be, 'Uh, let's do away with the appeals process'.
Brilliant. And how many innocent prisoners die because of summary execution of sentence.
Furthermore, it is painfully obvious that the death penalty is only pursued in the U.S when the social status of the victim makes it important enough to do so.
Ergo, in cases of minorities killing whites, prosecutors seek the death penalty far more often than the other way around.
So, let's put this all together.
1. The rest of the civilized world abhors capital punishment; at least our NATO allies.
2. Capital punishment is irreversible.
3. The states do not have a standard protocol to use when determining capital offenses. Without blind justice, a sentence as severe as death should never, ever be given.
Instead of a lengthy appeals process clogging up our courts, I say let's put'em to work. Put'em to work and let their wages go towards a victim's relief fund for the families of the slain.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted September 21, 2004 10:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'll try not to pick on you today Wolfman.
Gee thanks.
Quote:
Capital punishment is not a deterrent. It is irreversible.
Here’s the situation. You lock up a man for 50 years of his life for murder. After those 50 years it is found out that he was innocent. How do you plan on giving him those 50 years? The death penalty is no more reversible as life in prison, so basically that’s a weak argument.
Quote:
Your all-too-obvious retort is course going to be, 'Uh, let's do away with the appeals process'.
Wow, thanks for trying to put words in my mouth. But isn’t the appeal process part of Habeas Corpus or worked in there somehow? Why would I want to get rid of a major part of the constitution. Drastic change like that would be a liberal thing, not a conservative one.
Quote:
It is more what...8 to 14 times more expensive to kill a criminal in the U.S. than it is to put them away for life?
That doesn’t make any sense at all. It could easily be done cheaper. In China for example, when an execution is done, they use one bullet and bill the dead guy’s family for the price of the bullet. So the execution is free, right?
That may be a little drastic, but the whole sitting on death row for 20 years or so needs to be fixed. That’s what costs so much. After the trial where the defendant is sentenced to death, give him a chance to appeal, then if he doesn’t get off, take him out back and shoot him. Problem solved, cheaply done, next case.
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted September 22, 2004 01:05 AM |
|
|
The problem I have with death penalty is the act of killing itself. What kind of example does that make for the people? If someone kills one of your loved ones, it's OK to shoot him as an act of revenge. It's a moral approval of that kind of thinking, and the fact that the government, as the representative projection of society, does it, reflects the ideals and and values of the entire community. Then no one should be surprised when one day we'll wake up and see people killing each other for revenge. The purpose of the government primarily is to prevent such kind of things from happening again by detension, not to follow an anachronic concept such as "eye for an eye".
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
|
|
