Capital Punishment

D

Drakur

Ex-Soldier
Joined
Nov 2, 2007
Messages
52
Age
37
Location
Dover AFB, DE
Gil
0
Should the death penalty be allowed in any society? Is it humane or is it merely barabaric? If it should be allowed, what should be capital crimes? Furthermore, what method of punishment should be allowed? Just thought I'd get the blood pumping on this one.
 
I'm not sure on this one, I was reading a story about a man who was freed after 16 years in prison who was innocent. If the death penalty had been around then this would of been an instance where I was against it. 100% guilty then give them the death deserved.
 
I think that life in prison is a much better punishment then death, death would just be an easy way out in my opinion, better let them rot behind bars for ages.
So I'm against it, not because it's morally wrong, not saying that it isn't, just that I think that there are worse things then death.
 
Definitely against! I don't think that any amount of power or authority should give someone the control over somebody else's life, even if they are a criminal.

Where is the line between moral and immoral murder? If it's not ok for the convict to murder someone, then why do the rules suddenly change for the executioner???? If you sentence a murderer to death then you are just stooping to their level, and they have no opportunity for rehabilitation, and in lots of cases people are wrongly accused.

In Yemen, homosexuality is punishable by death, as are things like possession of drugs, adultery and environmental pollution in other countries, in which case the criminal has no chance to learn from what happened and redeem theirself.
 
I don't think anywhere should be permitted to use Capital Punishment. It's barbaric and certainly goes against the law of nature. And that's coming from a non-religious perspective.

However, some people might pair Capital Punishment with euthenasia. I feel they're very different but I can see where these people are coming from.

When Capital Punishment is used as a sentence for murderers it's total hypocracy. Murder is murder, whether it is done for the law or against the law. But life should mean life in terms of a prison sentence. Murderers should always be made to stay in prison 'til death. I don't think those kinds of people deserve to live among others since they're a danger to everyone.

Many countries abuse Capital Punishment, imo. I think it's used too widely as punishment if at all. Some countries that allow it use it in cases like adultry and pregnancy outside marriage too. It's too risky.

I say no to Capital Punishment. In all cases.
 
Sephirothalpha said:
I'm not sure on this one, I was reading a story about a man who was freed after 16 years in prison who was innocent. If the death penalty had been around then this would of been an instance where I was against it. 100% guilty then give them the death deserved.
Click to expand...

Well, all those declared guilty were declared 100% guilty by the judicial system...it's a part of how it is built.

And what of the argument that it is too much of a burden to keep them in prison? How much money in taxes are being wasted on a criminal that couldn't even value another's life?
 
I think the death penalty should be used in extreme cases - like someone that will NEVER be released. Why clog up the jails?
I also think that our justice system is ridiculous, people just seem too get away with multiple offences altho I wouldnt go as far as the death penalty, abit of public humiliation might make them think twice. If I have to suffer the traumas of a break in, why should the crimal get let off or have a cushty life in jail for afew weeks?? It doesn't have to involve pain... but if you abuse my human right to live safely/go out safely without being attacked then I think it's only fair that their rights are taken away. Alternatively they could take the bloody t.v's and games rooms out of the bloody jails.....It's like a holiday camp
 
My views stands the same as it has been many years ago - yes, death penalty should be allowed in society, but should never be used carelessly since there is the possibility that someone could actually be an innocent. It's a terrible fate for those innocents, I know...and I do feel sorry for the people who had to take the consequences not meant for them.

A solution to that is to prolong the case until they are sure that the victim is really guilty. Our advanced technologies should be enough to determine the truth.

Now, I already stated my views some months ago, but I'll state it again. In fact, I'll copy and paste, with changes here and there. xD

Well, first of all, we have to think about where some of our tax money go to. In a sense, we are actually helping these criminals get an education, giving them food to eat three times a day, make their living situations better (like bambi implied, they are living like they are more fortunate than the poor who has no such valuables) - and all because they're in prison and obviously committed crimes. And by crimes, I mean cold-hearted murders, rapes, cannibalisms - along those degree. However, if it's such a small crime, then the jail should do.

But criminals who have committed heinous crimes...that I cannot tolerate or forgive. Imagine one of your loved ones as the victims...how would you feel about it? Yes, I am saying that I am not against the death penalty. I used to be, but my views changed when the situation involved me and my loved ones. Everything changes then.

There's criminals that pleads innocent, for they claim that they are not right in the head, so that should be an enough excuse to not face the death penalty. And these people actually get away with it. That's not right at all. Right in the head or not, those people are like the rest of us, with choices. Why give them the special treatment when they claim they are not right in the head? If someone is smart enough to actually say, "I'm not right in the head, so that is why I did what I did. Therefore, I plead not guilty."...then that tells me that person is surely right enough in the head to know what is going on and that they can indeed get away with that by stating they are mentally not right up there.

Now, take Jeffery Dahmer, for instance. His crimes dealt with sodomy, necrophilia, dismemberment, and cannibalism. Victims: Many...boys included. Children...

He convinced them that he needed therapy and was released with a five-year probation, only to screw up his already screwed up pathetic life by committing more murders. He did plead not guilty by claiming insanity, but they still found him guilty anyway and sentenced him 15 life terms. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't believe a damn word that comes out of criminal's mouth like Dahmer.

Then there's one (forgot his name) who kidnapped women, chained their feet, electrocuted them all at once (due to the chains, as they were all connected) and forced them to have sex with each other. Then he killed one woman, cooked her, and fed her remains to the others...who didn't know that what they had for dinner was one of their companions. He told them afterwards though...

How can we give people like that a second chance? I say that they should face death because life has nothing in store for them here on earth anymore. They are only tainting this world more with their mere presence...I cannot abide with such actions and have someone tell me that they're only human and people make mistakes. So why not a second chance...?

No, I believe that everyone has a sense of ethics and morals buried somewhere deep inside them, even if just a little. (Or at least, know the difference between right and wrong, generally speaking.) But whether they choose to follow it or not is their choice. And with a wrong choice, comes the consequences and they must face it. People like Dahmer has no room to change because sometimes, that's just the way it is. There are many changes in this world, yes, but then again, some things don't change at all. Cold truth.

Now, there's a difference between accidental and self defense murders to pre-meditated murders. Sometimes it can't be helped and someone will have to kill another in order to survive. That is why I stated earlier that it depends on the degree of crime and for what reason, mainly because situations like accidental and self defense murders are a different matter.

Now, if one of my loved ones happen to commit a pre-meditated murder that are seriously to the extreme, then yes, I would still feel that he or she deserves the death penalty, no matter how hard it will be for us. Easier said than done? Perhaps, but I will not side with evil for the sake of a loved one, no matter how cruel that may sound.

But that is why it is very important to teach your children and any of your love ones that killing is wrong and there will be severe punishment.

There are a lot of complicated scenarios that deals with murder...and while some are forgivable (very rare to some though), others are simply not tolerable in my eyes. All I know is that I'm against those who impose cruel intentions to others.
 
Last edited:
Definitely not. Capital punishment is flawed on so many grounds.

First and foremost: Courts screw up.
It's happened before and it WILL happen again. Every so often a person is accused and convicted of a crime they did not commit, if this happens then society bears the burden of homicide.

Secondly: It doesn't work.

The U.S. has the highest rate of executions in the world but look, crime is not decreasing. Obviously the previous offenders can't offend again but more spring in place, what are you going to; ban parenthood? That is about the level of madness, sinking to this level of barbarism is, in my mind.

Thirdly: Repercussions

You may make martyrs out of the criminal class and have an uprising on your hands. People will sympathise, apart from the sick bastards who would pass this punishment who are obviously so desensitised that they can hardly be called human.

Sorry if I speak out of place but it is barbaric, sick, unbecoming of any civilised nation and flawed to an inexcusable extent. This method sickens me.
 
Call me a barbarian, but I'm for the death penalty. I do think the United States misuses it, though. Giving people the death penalty for killing one person in a robbery gone wrong is rather misguided. I think the death penalty should be reserved for people who have commited heinous crimes and show no remorse (ie: people like Charles Manson).

Now, I know everyone likes to get all bleeding heart about criminals and claim they deserve a second chance. True, some do. However, there are certain people who do not deserve second chances, nor do they, in my opinion, deserve the right to life. They are monsters. Society is better off if these people are dead. Sad, but true.
 
I don't believe that capital punishment is a way to solve a problem whatsoever. Killing somebody for whatever heinous crime they've committed is not going to solve the rampant situation or the nature of such crimes. We're all to blame though, as each participant in society holds and ushers in some factors which determine the seemingly logical thought process of certain people's conclusions to problems. I fail to see how denying one man his bread is not a crime. But then again we're not Communists, are we? I don't want some old schizophrenic gentleman controlling my city's entire power supply. And I'm going off topic.

What I'm saying is that the justice system cuts the weeds instead of pulling out the roots, which solves nothing; granted, when considering human nature and what it may entail, it is hard indeed to imagine finding a situation which does not require mind numbing complexities-if there is even a solution of absolute nature. Too many sacrifices would have to be made, and society itself actually runs better under primitive and simple machination.

Your daughter gets raped and then cut to pieces by some madman-you want his blood. Of course you do. I don't even have a daughter and I want his blood.

The logical and most efficient means to start finding a solution is to study whatever mental illness this madman is suffering from, and using said discovery, facts and theories and implement them unto a plan of prevention. (I say mental illness, because when considering the ''common man'' in our Western civilization at least, this is far from ''standard'' social behaviour.)

But if you don't please the masses, then a lot more blood will flow then would one madman. It is indeed a whole idea of morality which upholds the pillars of social conduct, not legitimate benefices as we're told, and we must abide by it-I believe it to be an actual simple system, one where turmoil and chaos would issue should such seemingly heartless decisions were to be considered instead.

Such as a cycle, masked under pretext. How nice. I mean, you do not tell a pack of wolves to share its meat, right?
 
Last edited:
I do not believe that Capital Punishment is an any way inhumane.

Sentencing a person to death is not so much a decision of the court, or legal system, as it is a choice made by the criminal. Certain things in life are being made too complex, and therefore I believe that the truth behind subjects such as these become skewed with false ideas of "morals" I'm not saying that morals are false ideas, but simply that morals isn't the right word in regards to this particular topic.

Consider, if you will, the following. A man leaps from a tall building. A simple act, with obvious consequences. Jump from a high place: Risk Death. This is how simple Capital Punishment truly is. There is no moral roadblocks along the way. A simple agreed upon consequence, in this case death, to certain actions, lets say premeditated murder, is where the line is drawn. This is not a bloodthirsty act of an uncivilized society merely out for the sport of the kill. This is a communities decision on how to react to certain situations. If the future criminal is unsatisfied with the possible results of his/her actions, then all they must do to avoid said consequence, is to not perform said crime.

Basically what I'm saying is that if the death sentence is in place, and is clearly marked as to which crimes merit the use of the death sentence, then the criminals choice to commit one of the clearly marked crimes comes with the full knowledge that they are leading themself to death. It's not all that different from committing suicide. An act and a consequence; An action and a reaction; Nothing more.


However, there are moral issues to be raised in the naming of which crimes would merit the use of Capital Punishment. But, since that's not what this thread is about, I can honestly state that my opinion on this subject is unwavering.

Capital Punishment is not inhumane.
 
I think capital punishment is the MOST humane extreme sentence. Also, it is neccessary.

If you're stuck in the same place/situations for years straight, until the day you die, don't you think you would lose at least a good chunk of your sanity...? And if you feel like you're being put through hell, you'd want to die, trust me... So, if anything, Capital Punishment is WAY less cruel than life in prison.

Also, it is necessary because otherwise, the prisons would be filled to the brim and they'd need to build more or let people who deserve prison time off with absolutely nothing.
 
LupineVoid,

I think that you have arrived at the correct solution, but with an improper method... so to speak.

If you deem Capital Punishment to be humane by the reasoning that being imprisoned for an extended period of time would affect your mental well being, then in order for it to truly be humane, you would have to allow the death penalty to be an option for the criminal. Otherwise, you are making the choice for them as to which punishment would be more preferred, which is inhumane. If, however, there was no choice to be made because the death penalty was stated to be a simple matter of action to correct a problem then you would avoid the whole idea that the overall mental well being of a person throughout the duration of their sentence had anything to do with the subject at all.


Also, to kill a human being simply because their isn't enough room for them to move about comfortably is, well... I think you see where I'm going with this. And as such, I hope, for the sake of people around you, that you either spoke without thinking it through all the way, or that you die before overcrowding of the planet becomes an issue.
 
*shrugs* If someone did something bad enough to garner life in prison or the death penalty, they've lost their rights anyways. Something that annoys me is the 'controversy' over the death penalty that keeps people in jail long after their sentence should have been carried out, because people deem it 'inhumane', and keep trying to debate it from existence.

It shouldn't matter, and shouldn't be a problem. The only problem I see with the death penalty is if someone is wrongfully accused, tried, and sentenced. In which case, they should keep investigating and only hold back carrying out the sentences of those in very questionable positions, that may be proven innocent more easily than most.
 
The whole idea behind having "humane" punishments for criminals isn't to stay within their legally obtained "rights" at birth, but more or less to keep society from becoming a bunch of unorthodox, bloodthirsty, savages. Or, in other words, to keep everyday society from the criminal path that they are deeming unjust.
 
Basically what I'm saying is that if the death sentence is in place, and is clearly marked as to which crimes merit the use of the death sentence, then the criminals choice to commit one of the clearly marked crimes comes with the full knowledge that they are leading themself to death. It's not all that different from committing suicide. An act and a consequence; An action and a reaction; Nothing more.
Click to expand...

Whoa. You're defining the meaning if ''inhuman'' and then dismissing it with a philosophical ideal. I'm pretty sure most folks don't have that in mind, especially not the Justice systems.
I like the idea actually, but I'm certainly not convinced that the laws and morality by which we must abide are established with common sense in mind.

Also, there's much more to it then that. Mental disorders, for example. People who don't keep up with the social flow, and are out of the loop. People who just don't know, or care. The debates from state to state and country to country as to weather or not such laws should be established. Does it sound ridiculous?
It's just about as bad as suggesting that society is some near like Utopian element solely running on what folks might know about actions and consequence. It might seem that people do, but our mental core really isn't built to anticipate the conclusion, especially when one is driven by stress, insanity or hysteria. Now, that doesn't encompass every single murderer and pedophile, but it still does a great deal.
The entire thing, as asinine as its declarations may be and as confusing as the whole thing is, does not run, work or function on people's subconscious desires or grasp of whatever common sense or morality you seem to deem as absolute.

Also, it is necessary because otherwise, the prisons would be filled to the brim and they'd need to build more or let people who deserve prison time off with absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

Prisons already ARE filled to the brim, and oftentimes, with criminals who may not even deserve such high sentencing. A father who steals bread for his three kids and he gets seven years, while the other father who sexually abused his own daughter only gets five on the promise of good behaviour? Right. What does ''inhumanity'' mean again?
Such examples sure as hell don't underline the goodwill and battle against evil these very establishments claim to go against. In fact, with such things as police brutality, unfair and inconsiderate sentencing, or the blatant fact that most crimes and how grave the perception thereof, as well as the actions handed in consideration to these crimes and their moral significance signify a hierarchy OF significance pertaining to social economy. Not that's it's a bad thing-it's inevitable, in the least.
But as such, it certainly is an obtrusion to the guidance and security they claim to establish and work for.

Inhumanity, it seems subjective to many people, usually established after being on the receiving end of something. (Human nature and reaction provided by such-another subject.) That's why people debate about it all the time, when considering the standard norm, and putting away mental disorders and the like.
Nobody seems to be able to decide what's right and what's not, and so I stress, in the end and because of this, those pulling the hanging nooses must cater to the bloody mob and their emotions. THAT, in my opinion, is what constructs most of its significance, and not common sense or philosophy.
 
Last edited:
If I'm not mistaken, I think that the state of Texas has reduced the punishment for possession of marijuana-4 ounces or less to a ticketable offense, instead of jailtime, to help reduce the amount of inmates in our city and county jails. That's one way that the state is correcting the overcrowding issue.

Another way is the Death Penalty. I am all for it. But I think that it should only be used for the criminal who disregards human life as valuable, and find no remorse in how they harm other people. Also, I don't believe that anyone should have a life sentence without the possibilty of parole. If a criminal has no possibilty of getting out of prison, then we shouldn't waste our tax dollars on keeping them alive, ESPECIALLY if they serve no purpose to mankind whatsoever. Call me what you will, but there is just no point in keeping them alive.
 
I don't really think that killing people is the best way to solve overcrowding in prisons, it's a very barbaric and wasteful method =/
These people are still humans and no amount of inhuman acts takes that fact away. You can pretend to be a walrus all of your life but that doesn't make you a walrus (bad example, i know, but it was the best way of describing it I could think of :P).

My PSE teacher mentioned the army as a way of dealing with some criminals, which makes sense as it is disciplanary (I don't know much about this situation though, so I don't know how much this would go against my beliefs as a pacifist but it certainly seems a better solution than killing some of the more serious criminals)

If you look at Myra Hindley for example, who was sentenced only months after the death penalty was abolished in Britain. If she had been caught only a few months previously then she would have been put to death, and there were a lot of acts from the public to bring it back for her. But if she had been put to death, then that would be it, over. She wouldn't have to go through any suffering for what she had done.

I suppose it depends how you look at the situation though, to me the whole idea of an eye for an eye seems immature/hypocritical/barbaric/unfair.
 
I like the idea actually, but I'm certainly not convinced that the laws and morality by which we must abide are established with common sense in mind.
Click to expand...

I agree completely that common sense isn't always present at the debate table when laws are being thought of and passed. However, I don't think that just because the people who make the laws don't use it that we should disregard using it as a basis for our thoughts about the laws.

Just because our society doesn't often use common sense as a whole doesn't mean we should throw it away and forget about it. Things will never change if we give up because no one is listening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top