Jump to content

Capital Punishment: Yes or No?


Pirilao
 Share

Recommended Posts

Friends,I already repaired that they like a good subject for debate, I leave here plus a subject, that I find interesting.

 

In the United States of America the number of executions of criminals increases to each year, even so in other civilized countries, as England, France, Germany , Portugal , Italy, B?lgica ...,etc , the death penalty already has been abolished. In Brazil, the people in general, unbeliever of the police and judiciary equipments and sage of whom our arrests are schools of perfectioning of the crime, arrives, many times to clamar for the death penalty. What you think on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

USA: 150 executions per year

China: 10.000 executions per year

 

 

I'm always confused when people cry about the death penalty in the US and ignore the death penalty in China...maybe it's just here in Germany (where 95% are anti-american, by-the-way)...

 

I'm FOR the death penalty for war criminals. Executing the nazis in Nurnberg, 1946, was the best thing to do with them.

 

I'm AGAINST the death penalty in other cases, but FOR some "special treatment". Sexual criminals, terrorists and people like that should be locked up forever or go to some gulag-like prison camp. Death is too easy for them. These people should suffer like their victims and as long as we can't plant the memories of a person into another persons mind, they should suffer otherwise...

 

 

Yeah, that's quite harsh and not very "political correct", but when I read the details of sexual crimes, I lose my faith in humanity and get a desire to beat the crap out of these people...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im for death penalty for serious crimes such as gang rape, mass murder, war crimes etc.

No way am i paying for them to go to Gaol to enjoy the internet, cooked dinners every night, padded beds and funding them gaining a degree because it may "rehibitate them"

Since getting rid of hanging in Australia from about 1967 i think, the gaol system has just become a mess. Why should these crims go to a place where Glora Jeans just opened a coffee shop for the convicted. I think the gallows would more suit these people.

 

Also with the deaths in US compared to China, it is a different system of government and a larger population.

My mate comes from China, and he said the government makes the family pay for the bullets used in firing squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh...that's not cool

 

 

Kant's right about prisons. The British prison system's screwed up too, too many prisoners. You can't release them, but you can take their luxuries away or executed the nastier ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm against death penalty. BUT, there are times when it does seem easier for the hangman's noose, like for serious sexual offenders or serial killers (Fred West ring any bells for the British forum-users?). But where do you draw the line? Is some like Dr Harold Shipman, who killed 200+ old people with an over-dose of morphine, by all accounts a painless and fairly nice way to go, different to someone who kills a child (a crime which always invokes extreme responses)? And what about miss-trials or wrongful convictions? You can't release someone who has been hanged (or particular nation's favourite method).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am against capital punishment in all cases, even for mass murderers, if we kill them then we are no better than they are in terms of 'eye for en eye' etc... But i am also worried about the state of the prison system a the moment, for light sentenced prisoners, people who are in jail for small things, the current system is pointless, they just sit around costing us money avery day, personally i think we should bring back forced labour, forget about all these factory jobs going to be outsourced to India and china, why not let the prisners work off their debt to socioty in factories. rather than getting paid, they work off their time instead. indeed, instead of being in jail for a certain length of time, they have to clock up a certain number of hours working for the good of socioty, of course they have to sta in the jail at night of course, but the money that can be made from the work they do can really help to pay for them, rather than just the taxpayers money paying for them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that does include Saddam. Killing a couple of thousand innocents with poison gas qualifies for "war crime" and "crime against humanity".

 

And no, there are no errors in trials against war criminals. These people are known and guilty - it's just a matter of capturing them. Nobody will deny that people like Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler or Eichmann were guilty, right??

 

Very often these people are known to survivors or friends/family of the victims. Guys like Dr. Mengele or Adolf Eichmann were known throughout the whole world for their crimes, long before their death (Mengele) or their trial (Eichmann).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very much pro-death penalty, for serious crimes to the tune of murder (single or multiple with intent to kill) and agreeable as well to it for war crimes. I also feel that executions shouldn't cost more than two bullets, an 8-foot deep hole straight down, and one guy digging and filling said hole.

 

For sick, twisted people (sexual predators especially) I'm more for brutal, hard labor. In fact, I'm for brutal, hard labor for most offences. No need for walls, gentlemen, a gun-line works just fine. Alabama heat, no AC, no TV, no internet, nothing but work, sweat, blood, sleep and people with high-powered rifles constantly supervising, day in and day out. No mistreatment (i.e. beatings, witholding water or food) mind you, but no breaks either. It's prison, not a hotel, and they should repay their debt to society to the last dime. In my mind, prison should be about twice as hard as boot camp for the marines.

 

I'm not interested in being better or worse than these scum of the world, my L-rd will judge us both for our actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am implacably opposed:

 

1. what happens when the wrong person is found guilty?

2. it is not a good idea to give a state power to decide to kill people.

3. it is state murder in my book. Thou shalt not kill. No loopholes there.

[/personal opinion]

 

[edit]oh and life in prison is punishment every day for life. Death is punishment once.

Edited by Nevareion (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

my opinion is very simple:

In abstract. I agree to the arguments against. That the courts cannot decide on the life and the death, that does not serve of nothing as example for other psychopaths, that is a bigger punishment for the culprit a long penalty and not a fast exit. And for is there.

In concrete. If somebody badly made my daughter and I knew who age, I did not have justice that he was valid to it. He went there and he gave a shot to it. As it was itself a bad beast. End point. It is that I find that has people and has creatures that they had released the humanity. They are only people for it are.

It?s my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. what happens when the wrong person is found guilty?

 

With war criminals - the chance for that is zero. All nazis are known, Saddam and "poison Ali" are known and the guys still free in Bosnia are also known...it's just a matter of catching them.

 

With "normal criminals"...you have a point there. That's why I'm for forced labor for these kind of people.

 

2. it is not a good idea to give a state power to decide to kill people.

 

Simple question: Why?

Plus: The state already has. Military, police...

 

3. it is state murder in my book. Thou shalt not kill. No loopholes there.

 

Translation error. It said: "Thou shalt not murder." Killing is OK, otherwise all these heroes in the old testamony would have to be executed at once, because the old testamony is a collection of ancient wars...

 

Besides that - what can you do with a war criminal like Eichmann, Saddam, Hitler? Can you ever re-integrate them into society?? These people deserve to die.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe anyone has the right to deprive another sentient being of life. Full stop. Ever. Point taken about the mistranslation, but from my point of view the meaning is the same. As for the Old Testament, well the New superseeds it and that makes it quite clear that killing is wrong.

The state should not kill in civil society, more so as it is easily a faceless bureaucracy where no one need take personal responsibility for killing someone - that makes it very easy to do with a flick of a pen. That is dangerous power to give to officialdom in my mind.

As for the police they absolutely should not be allowed to kill as they are a civil force. I oppose the militarisation of civil society. I may have to accept that armies are needed and may have to engage in violent and deadly combat but that doesn't mean it is right or that the state should be encouraged to have the same attitude in other areas.

Granted some people, the criminally insane for example, can never be reintegrated into society, but why does that make it right to kill them? Hess was imprisoned until he died. Life long incarceration seems to me to be a harsher punishment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry this may swing off on a tangent, but say if some bugger broke into your house, threatened you with a weapon, and you clubbed the bloke over the head with a cricket bat, killing them. We've probably done this before, but would this count as murder?

Or: how about the person broke into your house, but didn't threaten you with a weapon, and you still did the above?

Or, you took it to extremes, and shot them with a gun (I'm not talking firearm, cos even pepper spray counts as a firearm).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the police they absolutely should not be allowed to kill as they are a civil force. I oppose the militarisation of civil society.

well, if someone is running at a policeman holding a knife, i think the policeman has a right to be able to defend himself, but here in britain, policemen only carry guns when they are going to capture a suspect who is likly to be violent, on the beat they dont carry guns at all, ever. which is why its really odd when we see american TV, and a policemen pulls someone over and forces them to get out of the car while pointing a gun at them just for speeding...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me Tag:

case 1 = self defence

case 2 = murder

case 3 = (assuming it is non deadly) probably proportionate use of force.

 

[edit]

@Phil, of course the police should be able to defend themselves, thats why they have batons which are not pleasant weapons at all. I mean the police should in no circumstances have the right to kill.

Edited by Nevareion (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

well yes, and i'm glad the police in britain have batons rather than the pistols the americans do, but if there is a guy holed up in a house, with a rifle, picking people off, then what can the police do? they should then have the right to get a sniper out to prevent the guy from shooting any more people, otherwise what can they do, wait for him to run out of ammo shooting at the police? but i see what you mean, and i would always prefer they shoot not to kill, i.e. shooting legs or arms, non-lethaly first...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: The writer of this post is a red-blooded American, who owns in excess of 30 firearms, hunts for dinner when hunting is in season, and lived in a log cabin five miles from the next closest house prior to attending college.

 

I am definitely in favor of the death penalty. When a dog goes nuts and attacks or kills a human, do we put him up in a cushy hotel and feed him doggy treats while he watches cable? No, we put a .45 between his eyes and tell the janitor to get a mop. So why is it different if we catch a human doing the same thing? I think there should be executions for rape, murder, and all other violent crimes, and I think the families should have to pay for it. The execution for the crime should be comparable to the crime as it was committed. And if an innocent man is found guilty, then I'm truly sorry but his lawyer sucked.

 

I also think that police should have guns. It sets them apart from the populace as an enforcer - someone Joe Q. Public can count on to enforce the law by whatever means necessary. Batons, as has been stated, are ineffective against people with guns. That is why I support the Texas Rangers buying tanks and armored personnel carriers to enforce the law. In this post-9/11 world, when you don't know where the next terrorist attack will come from and what form it will take, you have to be prepared for everything. I also support the right-to-carry laws in the States. Perhaps criminals will think twice about stealing that little old lady's purse if that lady is packing a Desert Eagle. And finally, I also support whichever jail it is in Arizona that enforces hard labor by inmates at gunpoint, removed air conditioning and TVs and all other forms of entertainment from prisoner's cells and the prison grounds, and forced returned escapees to wear nothing but pink boxers to set them apart from regular inmates. When someone goes to jail, they have taken someone else's rights and liberties away, and yet we are expected to respect their rights? No, prison is not a luxury resort, and repaying the public is something that has been totally forgotten in the prisons of today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Van, i didnt hear about that Prison, is that true? if so, tht is what all prisons should be like! But i don't like guns at all, and about those tanks, how is having a tank going to stop a suicide bomber blowing himself up or someone flying a plane into a building?

 

as for people having guns reducing the crime rate, Britain has been anti guns for a long time, and our murder rate is massivly less than the US Murder rate, if you look at the Canadien murder rate, they have double the number of murders that we do a year, and half the population, and their gun laws allow the public to carry guns, it's not hard to see the trend that if the public are allowed to carry guns, the murder rate goes up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that may be true, but it's things like that that make Americans poke fun at Canada (no offense Canadians, but you're the butt of more jokes than New Jersey is). Look at Florida's and Texas's crime rate, where they not only allow you to carry almost any gun you want, but they also teach you how to use them safely. Slowly but surely declining since they enacted those laws.

 

As for the tank, I defy a suicide bomber to blow himself up against a tank. I also defy a sniper to shoot a tank. They'd both have about the same effect. But how many people are going to do illegal things when they see the Sheriff rolling down the street in a panzer? It's all about the image, in that case, which is a lot of the same reason why cops carry guns - they hardly ever use them...but they could, and that's what keeps people in line. But we digress from the topic at hand. Which message is going to deter more crime:

"Kill someone and we'll lock you up with cable TV, great meals, and plenty of free time;"

OR

"Kill someone and we're going to kill you in the same way, and we're going to make your family pay for it."

?

 

I know which one would prevent me from killing someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My Dad was until recently a visitng prison chaplain. He said that from what he saw prison was anything but easy. He described it as a soul destroying place that institutionalised and dehumanised people. Their lives are totally controlled by other people and thier free will taken away. He said it wasn't much nicer for the guards either.

 

Innocent people are found guilty not always because of bad lawyers but because sometimes the police are so sure they have the right people they "find" the evidence - Guildford Four, the recent cases of mothers accused of killing their babies and sentenced on the opinions of experts who in somecases had not even interviewed or investigated the families concerned. Miscarriages of justice happen quite often sadly. Everyone is human and makes mistakes. I personally think that given this is going to keep happening the risk of killing an innocent person is too high to chance. I cannot accept an argument that that is worth sacrificing innocent lives in order to kill people who did commit a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...