death penalty - yes or no
- Thread starter Quagmire
- Start date
No. I agree with candy and KJC. Nuff said.
some people in prison deserve to be gassed for the fun of it, would the world be a worse place without someone like alan webster
If the legal system sentences you to a term in prision that is longer than your life will last, say 80+ years, then you have simply become a burden on the governement. If there were a way to pay for your tenure in prison other than taxes, thats fine, but there are too many people in the world that need help to let this person be paid for in prison for the rest of their life
I voted no because an eye for an eye makes the world go blind. I also believe that our criminal justice systems are extremely flawed. Innocent people are executed everyday. Think about the way the death penalty is implemented in the U.S.A. A district attorney has the right to charge a person with murder one and seek the death penalty depending on what kind of mood they are in. Unfortunately most of the judges, district attorneys, and jurors that are responsible for decided if a felon should live or die, are incapable of thinking objectively when their working. The feelings of the victim’s family members should have nothing to do with our criminal justice system. All of the people that are involved criminal justice process should be trained to think objectively at all times. Painful emotions don’t solve problems. They usually make our problem worse. Logical decisions solve problems.
A person that is being charged with murder one doesn’t even have to kill someone. He or she just has to be in the process of committing a felony while someone is killed. For example, a man that has never committed a violent crime in his life could be driving in a car with his friend. They could be going to a place to sell some cocaine to an acquaintance. Now what the driver doesn’t know is that his friend has a gun on him, and the customer is actually an undercover police officer. The man would then proceed to exchange the cocaine for the money. That is when the police officers would come out of hiding to let the men know that they are under arrest. That is when the guy with the gun panics and kills one of the police officers. The police officers would then open fire as the suspects run for their lives. The end result is that both suspects are charged with murder 1 despite the fact that only one of the men is responsible for the death of the police officer.
I believe that our criminal justice systems should be about 10% punishment and 90% rehabilitation. Unfortunately it is the complete opposite. We choose to combat the misery and pain in this world by inflicting more misery and pain. We don’t like to think about creative ways to prevent or reduce the misery and pain in the world. We hear stories about rapists, murders, and child molesters and the first response from most people is that they should be executed or imprisoned for the rest of their lives. We don’t want to think about the problems in our society that created the criminals. We don’t want to think about what has to be done to rehabilitate the criminals.
I will admit that some criminals cannot be rehabilitated, but they can still be useful in our society. I believe that all prisoners that are serving a life sentence should be given a reason to live. If they behave properly they should be given some privileges like, a comfortable bed, internet service, cable television, conjugal visits with a spouse or prostitute. (If they weren’t convicted of rape) In return they should have to give something back to our society. They could work within the prison. (General labor, factory jobs, Ect.) We could create a relatively peaceful society within our prisons, where the inmates would have to work for all of their privileges. But that would be too difficult our politicians, wardens, Ect. It would require too much thinking and rational thought. It is much easier to treat our criminals like shit and release some of them without any rehabilitation so they can commit more crimes.
A person that is being charged with murder one doesn’t even have to kill someone. He or she just has to be in the process of committing a felony while someone is killed. For example, a man that has never committed a violent crime in his life could be driving in a car with his friend. They could be going to a place to sell some cocaine to an acquaintance. Now what the driver doesn’t know is that his friend has a gun on him, and the customer is actually an undercover police officer. The man would then proceed to exchange the cocaine for the money. That is when the police officers would come out of hiding to let the men know that they are under arrest. That is when the guy with the gun panics and kills one of the police officers. The police officers would then open fire as the suspects run for their lives. The end result is that both suspects are charged with murder 1 despite the fact that only one of the men is responsible for the death of the police officer.
I believe that our criminal justice systems should be about 10% punishment and 90% rehabilitation. Unfortunately it is the complete opposite. We choose to combat the misery and pain in this world by inflicting more misery and pain. We don’t like to think about creative ways to prevent or reduce the misery and pain in the world. We hear stories about rapists, murders, and child molesters and the first response from most people is that they should be executed or imprisoned for the rest of their lives. We don’t want to think about the problems in our society that created the criminals. We don’t want to think about what has to be done to rehabilitate the criminals.
I will admit that some criminals cannot be rehabilitated, but they can still be useful in our society. I believe that all prisoners that are serving a life sentence should be given a reason to live. If they behave properly they should be given some privileges like, a comfortable bed, internet service, cable television, conjugal visits with a spouse or prostitute. (If they weren’t convicted of rape) In return they should have to give something back to our society. They could work within the prison. (General labor, factory jobs, Ect.) We could create a relatively peaceful society within our prisons, where the inmates would have to work for all of their privileges. But that would be too difficult our politicians, wardens, Ect. It would require too much thinking and rational thought. It is much easier to treat our criminals like shit and release some of them without any rehabilitation so they can commit more crimes.
I say yes for execution if they are proven guilty, send all murderers to the "prison planet", give them food, they can either kill eachother or they could build a civilization, and to pay for all this, we make it a game show!
On that note, prisons are something you can invest in, thus I'd image the prison investors like seeing prisoners in their prison, $$$, so hey, why not let them take care of themselves somewhere else? Maybe a large prisoner island for the world murderers?
anyway...
On that note, prisons are something you can invest in, thus I'd image the prison investors like seeing prisoners in their prison, $$$, so hey, why not let them take care of themselves somewhere else? Maybe a large prisoner island for the world murderers?
anyway...
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Why is it simply yes or no? Don't we need to look at the crime in question? Or in the case of murder look at the circumstances that lead to the act? Personally I would like to see all child molesters hung by their testicles so therefore I am not against the death penalty but the justice system should be careful in how they assess the crime and dole out the judgement.
candy said:
Your arguement against the death penalty was not that it was wrong to punish someone capitally, but that some innocent people are killed by mistake. So you're saying that it is not wrong in principle, but in that it is not done correctly. My analogy is that you would take a stance against driving a car, not because you are against the idea of driving the car, but because sometimes people crash them.
I don't think poor execution (no pun intended) of an ideal is quite as convincing of a reason to disbar it than actually finding a fault in the ideal itself.
You allow the state the right to exist? Who told you that? Try to stop the government from existing. Try to stop just one member of the stae from existing. There's like a 90%+ chance that you would be caught. If caught, they would take away your right to exist. You give the state no such rights, because are a slave to it. The government already owns everything that you own because it owns you.
That would be a fitting government, but you're forgetting that theives and bank robbers steal because they have little or nothing to be stolen. Copy-write infringers are actually stealing, so they should be stolen from. Drug distribution and prostetution shouldn't be crimes.
I don't agree with the death penalty, because the accused won't gain anything from the experience. Since it is America, shouldn't we be interested in each individual reaching success? Again our government has failed us...
I wasn't expecting anyone to take this post seriously, and I was implying that the "make the punishment fit the crime" rule is too simplistic to be of any practical use.Oniw17 said:
Actually, they're copying. Whether you consider it a crime or not is a seperate issue, but there's a big difference between copying and theft.
I'm not so sure about that. The way I see it, the fact that digital data is easy and cheap to copy is a property or feature of the product, and it's not like software and record companies don't profit from it. There's an overhead cost to developing software, but practically no incremental cost for each additional copy produced. This is why large software companies like Microsoft have so many billions at their disposal. In essence, one could argue that such companies had economic laws changed just to suit them - they're allowed to take full advantage of the fact that data can be easily copied, but no-one else is due to an artificial law.
In the case of record companies, I've heard that it's the artists themselves that have to pay the recording fees. If this is the case, what is the record industry really offering? People are being forced to pay for a service they don't need. Anyone can burn a CD, so there's no real need for some organization to do it for them. I really find it difficult to sympathize with the record industry.
As for considering copying to be theft, I don't agree here either. Suppose I see a BMW in a showroom I like. If I go home and build an exact replica of it, did I steal the original car? Copying something doesn't prevent anyone from using the original or the manufacturer from selling it. Also, when you talk about all the money lost to piracy, you assume that every copyright infringer would have purchased a legitimate copy if piracy didn't exist. Many probably wouldn't.
Basically, the question is: should a market that is inherently risky be protected by the introduction of artificial laws that restrict the rights of the public? I don't know about you, but I think it's just plain ridiculous for laws to exist that restrict which sequences of ones and zeros are allowed on my CDs and harddisk.
[Not that this has anything to do with the death penalty...]
In the case of record companies, I've heard that it's the artists themselves that have to pay the recording fees. If this is the case, what is the record industry really offering? People are being forced to pay for a service they don't need. Anyone can burn a CD, so there's no real need for some organization to do it for them. I really find it difficult to sympathize with the record industry.
As for considering copying to be theft, I don't agree here either. Suppose I see a BMW in a showroom I like. If I go home and build an exact replica of it, did I steal the original car? Copying something doesn't prevent anyone from using the original or the manufacturer from selling it. Also, when you talk about all the money lost to piracy, you assume that every copyright infringer would have purchased a legitimate copy if piracy didn't exist. Many probably wouldn't.
Basically, the question is: should a market that is inherently risky be protected by the introduction of artificial laws that restrict the rights of the public? I don't know about you, but I think it's just plain ridiculous for laws to exist that restrict which sequences of ones and zeros are allowed on my CDs and harddisk.
[Not that this has anything to do with the death penalty...]
Last edited: