Thread: Capital Punishment

Why not turn the issue into a reality show...even better a reality "game" show, much like it was in that movie "The Running Man."

Originally posted by ronso
The people in charge of the capital punishment aren't any better than the ones commiting the crime in the first place. They're all murderers.

You just said that you would "want" to kill somebody who killed somebody precious to you (but then said in the end you wouldn't). If you had said that you would at first want to kill an innocent three year old, wouldn't that statement have been much more cold blooded and far less understandable? Of course. Killing the innocent is far more evil than killing the proven blatantly evil. Therefore, the people in charge of capital punishment are not on the same level as the rotten people they are killing.

You guys watch too many movies. That crazed murderer you just put in prison is indeed so loopy doodle, he's gonna get back out and kill you because now he's stuck in some prison for the rest of his days - because you decided you were gonna be "nice" and only confine him to a prison for many a decade. But guess how he's gonna get out? By gouging holes in the prison walls with a spoon. And yeah, one guy actually did this.

Then, he's going to escape, swim through the sea surrounding that remote island he's sat on, reach dry land (again), find your grandma and kill her slowly in front of you while she's crying for help and there's nothing you can do. Because he's hung you upside down from the ceiling. Oh, and it's going to scar your child for the rest of its life too. And that's if he doesn't throw him out your window. Then go down, take him up, resucitate him, and then chuck him out again.

Isn't that nice?! I sure would be glad I let that guy stay alive now! Hooray for peace! And sure, it may not happen, but I'll be damned if I'm going to give him that chance.

Originally posted by Universal Mind


You just said that you would \"want\" to kill somebody who killed somebody precious to you (but then said in the end you wouldn't). If you had said that you would at first want to kill an innocent three year old, wouldn't that statement have been much more cold blooded and far less understandable? Of course. Killing the innocent is far more evil than killing the proven blatantly evil. Therefore, the people in charge of capital punishment are not on the same level as the rotten people they are killing.

Yeah, I know. I guess hate is a pretty normal feeling when something like this happens to you.

But killing someone 'evil' won't bring peace of mind to you or the people in charge of the punishment.

And one more thing about the punishment is that, sometimes, innocent people are being sentenced to death without much time to prove their innocense. There was a class that was given an assignment that they would prove the innocents of some people in the death row. And they got like 10 innocent people of there.

I am a firm believer in it. Logically, no other alternative exists.

When you kill someone, there are consequences.

Originally posted by Berserk_Exodus
I am a firm believer in it. *Logically, no other alternative exists.

When you kill someone, there are consequences.

Ahh that's a weird kind of logic mate...
Logically if killing one person is bad, then killing two people is even worse.
Emotionally if one person kills someone, then that person must be so bad that he shoudl be killed.

Personally I prefer a logical argument to a hugely emotive one.

I guess the argument is so diverse that it really comes down to personal opion. Those that think killing a murderer is justified despite available alternatives, and those that don't.

Originally posted by Roller


Ahh that's a weird kind of logic mate... *
Logically if killing one person is bad, then killing two people is even worse.
Emotionally if one person kills someone, then that person must be so bad that he shoudl be killed.

Personally I prefer a logical argument to a hugely emotive one.

I guess the argument is so diverse that it really comes down to personal opion. Those that think killing a murderer is justified despite available alternatives, and those that don't.

Unfortunately, no other alternative provides the same level of closure for the family of the innocent victim.

I didn't read the whole thread because I suck, so I apologise in advance if someone already said this.

You forgot the "It depends" choice. If they were a mass murderer and killed lots of people, they shouldn't be allowed to live. But sometimes, they get killed for incredibly stupid reasons, which is wrong.

It is not right to take a human life if they are still young, however. They should be like 20ish before they can receive a death sentence, when they are mature and can face the consequences of what they did.

They also should not be killed if they have any history of mental problems. If you're crazy, you can't help it.

Also, who would disagree with Ghandi?

Originally posted by CatLover
It is not right to take a human life if they are still young, however. They should be like 20ish before they can receive a death sentence, when they are mature and can face the consequences of what they did.

They also should not be killed if they have any history of mental problems. If you're crazy, you can't help it.

First off, I don't think the age of someone should be a matter in capital punishment. If someone murders 30 people, they deserve to die, or to be tortured which will never happen. The point is, if someone's gonna do something that makes them deserve a death sentence, their age shouldn't matter.

Here's a scenario for you to think about: Your family and friends are murdered. All of them. There's no one left for you to talk to, no one left to even recognize in a friendly way. Then you find out specifically who did it. But they've got ties in the justice system and calling the police won't help, thus you can't take them to court. So there they are out on the loose killing other people, and there's nothing the justice system can do about it.

Wouldn't you want to just bash in that person's skull? I sure as hell would.

Plus a life sentence is the same thing as a death sentence, only it takes longer. Because read the title of it again: a life sentence. Meaning they will be there until they are dead. At least that's what it's supposed to be. Why not save the money and time of keeping them alive that long, and save it by just putting them in a room and shoot them. One bullet costs a lot less than 20+ years of keeping someone alive.

And another thing, that is a really bad irony. Christians have their sins and commandments, in particular, against hurting other people. Yet Christians somehow felt that they had the right to commence in the Crusades, murderering millions of people for, essentially, no reason.

Yet why isn't that Crusades thing a big deal today? Because it's a stain in the common culture's past and Christians are supposed to be "good" people. We can't have good people that kill can we?

You made a good point, but what if the person who murdered your family was like... 12 years old... you cannot honestly say you would murder someone who didn't know any better.

How can a 12 year old murder people and not know any better? If they're smart enough to be responsible for someone's murder, they know enough about what they're doing. Thus, they're only gonna get worse. And this is particularly true if it's first degree. You can't plot out someone's murder and not know any better. I mean it's not liek somebody just sits there and then goes "Holy crap, I just drew out a schematic map of somebody's house, broke into it, strangled them to death with gloves on and escaped all in just 10 minutes and I don't remember any of it!"

If they don't understand what went on during the murder, then they'd understand it during the trial. If not, then they'll just go "Hey, I killed somebody and nothing happened. Wonder what'd happen if I killed two more people?" And then they go off into a killing spree until someone finally cuts them down.

And a charge that would result in the death sentence would probably have to be 1st degree murder or multiple murders. Nobody can commit those kind of acts without knowing what they're doing. Even a mentally ill person is still responsible. Then again I think the mental illness is not an excuse, because that doesn't change the fact that they killed somebody.

If some 12 year old punk even hurt someone that I care about, I'd beat them down with a pipe and piss on their forehead. A kid in court is like a damn puppy dog. They get away with stuff because they're so "cute and innocent." I should become a judge just so I can go "Hey kid, shut the hell up with the guilt trips or I'll chuck my hammer at you!!" That'd be so awesome to see a judge freak out on a kid. But then they'd be blasted on the media. Wankers...

Anyway, anybody who can be charged on 2+ first degree murders should die, especially kids. A kids who commits homicide, is probably gonna be born and raised as a murderer, so we should take 'em down before they get away with more. As for second degree... I dunno. Not far from first degree though.

Originally posted by Vampyre
How can a 12 year old murder people and not know any better? If they're smart enough to be responsible for someone's murder, they know enough about what they're doing. Thus, they're only gonna get worse. And this is particularly true if it's first degree. You can't plot out someone's murder and not know any better. I mean it's not liek somebody just sits there and then goes \"Holy crap, I just drew out a schematic map of somebody's house, broke into it, strangled them to death with gloves on and escaped all in just 10 minutes and I don't remember any of it!\"

If they don't understand what went on during the murder, then they'd understand it during the trial. If not, then they'll just go \"Hey, I killed somebody and nothing happened. Wonder what'd happen if I killed two more people?\" And then they go off into a killing spree until someone finally cuts them down.

And a charge that would result in the death sentence would probably have to be 1st degree murder or multiple murders. Nobody can commit those kind of acts without knowing what they're doing. Even a mentally ill person is still responsible. Then again I think the mental illness is not an excuse, because that doesn't change the fact that they killed somebody.

Whoa man hang on, a 12 year old? I can see a life sentence for that, and no fucking judge would let him off without a damned thing, but jesus, killing him for it? A life sentence, yes... but a DEATH sentence? ... The kid barely had a chance to live his life, but he decided to fuck it up, so he gets put in jail for the rest of it. At least he got to live it!

And a mentally ill person? Man that's too far. Way too far. If a retard (seriously, you immature people) killed someone, you can't kill him for it, number one it probably wasn't intentionally because he didn't have the brain capacity to think it out in the first place... It is very uncommon for someone retarded to do something like that, but if he did, he can't really be blamed for it. And unless someone can provide me with solid, statistical facts proving me otherwise, I will stand by my statement on the mentally ill.

Twelve year olds understand the evil they commit. You might have an argument if you are talking about a three year old, but I don't think twelve year olds deserve special slack when it comes to murder. If they kill somebody I care about, their status as a twelve year old isn't going to add sympathy.

As for mentally ill people, I agree with the McNaughton rule, which a lot of states have adopted. A legally "insane" person has to have (1) not understood the nature of his actions and (2) not understood the difference between right and wrong. For example, if a person hears a voice saying it is the voice of God and that the person must kill the person next to him or else the world will be flooded, and the person is so crazy he truly believes it and acts on it even though he hates doing it, then he does not deserve death. He honestly did not understand what on Earth he was doing. He just needs to spend the rest of his life in a mental institution. There was a case of a guy who choked somebody to death and it was found that he completely believed that he was squeezing lemons. It seems that it would be hard to prove that, but if it was the case, the person did not deserve to die. Evil should be punished, but mere lack of touch with reality shouldn't.

Even someone who is 5 years old can deserve to die. The idea is that if they've done such an act that they get a death penalty, then they definitely deserve it. Even though it's very unlikely to happen, a 5 year old who murders a family or any number of people should be cut down.

As for the whole retard/mental issue. It's kinda sketchy. But looking at how it's very rare that someone actually kills people and is mentally ill. Thus it's probably 10 times more unlikely that they'll kill multiple people and deserve to be killed. I mean, if someone constructs a bomb to blow up a city block or something, then you can't say the didn't know what they were doing. And that's the kind of thing that should deserve a death penalty. Just one or two murders is a life sentence case (which is still the same as a death sentence, only longer and they have a chance at escaping), but a serial or spree killer probably deserves something worse.

When I was five, I had never been in a fight, and I watched a lot of television. I honestly believed that punching somebody in the face was no big deal and didn't really hurt. In all of the television shows, people would get punched in the face, and all that would happen was that a sound that resembles that of a slight clap would happen. After being hit about twelve times without slowing down at all, they would finally fall down and be knocked out, so I thought one punch was harmless. One day at kindergarten, one of my friends started getting in my face and acting crazy, just playing around. Just to play back, I punched him in the face. Much to my surprise, his nose bled for the rest of the day, and he had to have tissue, stained red, in his nose while he was reclined and didn't participate in class or recess. Since kids that young have such misunderstandings about reality, I can really see a kid that age shooting somebody with a gun, thinking they would suddenly start flickering in a different place and starting over, like people do in video games, or appearing somewhere else like actors do from movie to movie. Kids that young don't really get what's going on. Twelve year olds, on the other hand, do.

BAM!! I just took the 9000th post in philosophy!! Boo jah!! **dances**

It's stupid. A life in a prison is worse than a quick and painless execution.

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." - Ghandi

Originally posted by Roller
What I want to know is this: how can a country - a modern, free democracy - ever justify the death sentence as a means of punishment. We live in a modern world with an intelligent and understanding society, this stuff should not be happening... we've progressed beyond the stone age, people.

Society can now afford to deal with people appropriatley and in other ways than simply killing them. Killing a serial killer is not justifiablre and does not achieve anything, and that's not even taking into account the fact that it is possible you may kill an innocent person.

It kind of makes me angry when a country like America can claim to be 'god's country' or a land of the free and for democracy, when it's justice system still resorts to something as vulgar and unthinking as execution.

I understand your contempt; a death of another person is quite depressing.

However, I have belief in Death Sentencing. It is needed, in fact, it should be called upon MUCH more.

There is no way around it, you have corruption of society at every corner. There is just too many points of views out there to be able to found a stable ideology. Yet, the Death Sentence narrows it down to two ideas: Live or Die, Justice or Injustice, Loyalty to disloyalty, belief or doubt. The Death Sentence is enacted to try and 'assure' the American people that the government is doing their jobs keeping the Vagabonds out of societies reach. It puts a sense of punishment on all of us, since it makes us all afraid to reenact the prosecuted crime. Why would I go out and kill five children if a person before me died because he did? That is what the Government tries to inflict upon the masses. It then becomes in a sense, as Foucault says: "A punishment on the soul". In America, we need this.

Hm ok well I guess in the end maybe it should be a case of what people prefer... but there's a few arguments for capital punishment that I don't agree with:

[quote]

Why not save the money and time of keeping them alive that long, and save it by just putting them in a room and shoot them. One bullet costs a lot less than 20+ years of keeping someone alive.

No. To make sure that each person executed is guilty, they offer each person on Death Row a number of appeals etc. The lengthy court cases, some of which go on for years, and the court costs etc actually outweigh the costs of simply keeping the person in your average high-security prison.

Why would I go out and kill five children if a person before me died because he did?

Well this is somthing I have argued before, but I'll say it again; if you are twisted enough to want to kill five children, I don't think you will be sitting down before hand and looking through a text book on American law. Serial killers etc do it because they get a thrill out of it - it gives them a buzz, gets them off whatever. The main point here is that these people do not have any regards for human life, so what makes people think that they would stop before going on their four-state frenzied chainsaw killing spree because of the chance that they will be sentenced to death in ten year's time?

I can kind of see how it would provide families with a sense of security etc, but I don't see how it can give you assurance. It's not like murderers etc are some evil alien race out to destroy society, they are Americans - your next door neighbor, your church minister, you cousin, your aunt and I think they should be treated just like every other American person.

That's all for now, I dont think this debate will eer finish though.

The logic you gave is flawed and absurd. You gave us conditions too generalized to ever be true: "Serial killers etc do it because they get a thrill out of it - it gives them a buzz, gets them off whatever. The main point here is that these people do not have any regards for human life, so what makes people think that they would stop before going on their four-state frenzied chainsaw killing spree because of the chance that they will be sentenced to death in ten year's time?". How do you know that each and every serial killer does murder because of the 'thrill'? You can not. It would be impossible in the current state of society to see through every serial killers true motives, reactions and emotions. Is it a fact that 'these' people have no "regards for human life,"?

Your assumptions are too narrowminded. You portray the 'ideal' criminal when you speak of such facetious things. Everyone is given their current state from their previous events in life, which means they are also given different scenarios. What bothers me the most is that your views on capital punishment - more directly death sentencing - is not backed by much truth. This is proven by your resorting to statements that are cleary untrue and oblivious to the reality of things.

The reason why such crimes happen is deeply rooted in society and the way it is set up, and peoples understanding in general. You do not blame the person. You should be blaming everything that allowes crime to happen. Eg, the education systems, media, government, ect ect. We should be setting our attention on the solution as a whole. Trying to solve the problem and realizing where the problem is. What the cause is. Nothing will be solved by killing one another and ignoring the real causes of the problem. Because it will only continue to happen. How many people do you have to keep killing before you don't need to anymore. It will just go on and on until the problem is solved properly.

The only way is to evolve. To weed out the bad and ignorant entitys. To plant in the minds of the people real wisdom, and to create a society that is high in understanding, and light.

Then Capital Punishment will be pretty much laughed at, and seen as a complete failure. and any mention of it as a solution to anything will have them rolling around laughing.

The need for personal closure. eg, people needing to see someone killed because of what they did, is just another blindness on the individuals part. What they really need is spiriutal counseling and a way to work through their emotions.Not revenge. This could be easily solved and would not even be an issue in a intelligent society. That is just misplaced and improper use of anger and negative emotions, and the inability to transfer it into compassion.

Serials don't normally kill for the thrill of it. Most of them do it for sex. Probably about 80% of all serial killers raped at least some of their victims. And there's some who just feel the need to kill people, for whatever reason.

Even the idea that all killers have no regard for life is questionable. Look at Ted Bundy. He had been convicted of murders and rape. And yet, there was a girl who went missing and it was suspected that Bundy was involved. However, he claimed he was not, and there was never any proof that he was involved with that case. And he took the liberty to send the family a letter stating this:

I do not know what happened to your daughter Ann Marie. I had nothing to do with her disappearance. You said she disappeared August 31st, 1961. At the time I was a normal 14-year-old boy. I did not wander the streets late at night. I did not steal cars. I had absolutely no desire to harm anyone. I was just an average kid.[/b]

If he had no regard for human life, I doubt he would have cared that the girl went missing at all.

Hm ok fair enough, I agree that it is a massive gerneralisation, although I will say this:

If a person is motivated enough to kill someone for whatever reason, then they are not at that immediate time going to be very worried about the consequences. Maybe they will become guilty afterwards or when caught, but the consequences of a death sentence is highly unlikely to stop the moment of the killing.

[quote]

Serials don't normally kill for the thrill of it. Most of them do it for sex. Probably about 80% of all serial killers raped at least some of their victims.

Um what? You say that they don't normally kill for the thrill, but for sex? Why do you think they want sex? Because it gives them a thrill, the 'thrill' doesn't just have to be the act of killing, it can be a number of things such as sex, violence, sadism, the thought of being caught etc. The point is that serial killers are getting some sort of pleasure or satisfaction, otherwise why would they continue to kill?

My point is that whatever the serial killer's motive, pleasure, satisfaction, fear, voices in their head, the motive to them (at the time) is more important than life, and I highly doubt that the death sentece would deter them from killing.

So ok, I rephrase the 'thrill' statement to this:

A serial killer kills for whatever their motives may be, and of course every individual is different, and a lot can be due to their past. Wether this motive is for sex, any other form of pleasure or fear or anything, the motive is strong enough to make them want to kill again. I argue that if their motive is so strong that they have to kill people to satisfy it, then the consequences of capital punisment will make no difference to the outcome.

What about normal killers? You just kill one or two people because you hate them. Or for money or something. Thats the kind of person who would not kill someone because of capital punishment, not the crazy people.

You just said if someone was motivated enough to kill someone they wont care. What is killing someone though? Its a pretty simple task, anyone could do it. You don't need to be highly "motivated" to do it. Infact it could be that you made a horribly stupid mistake.

Of course most people don't think they will get caught and life in jail is almost as bad as dieing. So in the end it might not matter that much.