Finally a honest guy on death row
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
After all we live in the 21st century last I checked, I am sure we can execute someone without damaging his/her transfarable organs.
No, but I expect a Nobel prize for my invention. After all, why shouldn't society gain something out of the ordeal?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Of course, but not with the current methods..
They have family too though..
So? But I am glad you brought that up, because there was the organ donation issue including family members, but before execution:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/167/story_16702_1.html
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Well I'm against CP in principal but I can also see the problem with prisons.
Organ harvest is a good idea imo if the death row prisoner agrees with it.
Well, I am glad you like the idea. But why does the inmate have to agree? After all he/she doesn't need those organs anymore (after execution) not to mention at least it is a small payback to the society by him/her.
Now there is a counterargument against it, but I am not going to reveal it, let's see if anybody figures it out!
Now there is a counterargument against it, but I am not going to reveal it, let's see if anybody figures it out!
I don't like it. Internal organs are worth too much money to be transferring around from dead convicts. Unless you find a hospital and some doctors who will do the work for free, for low income patients. Even then, there is something strange about taking organs from dead criminals...
You should move to Saudi Arabia. You'd have a lot in common with people there. They have many more imaginative punishments there.
HOLY SHIT YOU EVEN GET TO WATCH A GUY RUN AROUND LOPPING HEADS OFF WITH LIKE A SAMURAI SWORD!!! OMFG LOLZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
For the same reason you have to agree, they are still people.
Yes, this seems to be the major argument, otherwise called an opinion.
By the way the organs would be distributed in a lottery system and the recipients wouldn't know where they got it from. Just like generally they don't know now....
But if a person waiting for a kidney is too picky, I am sure I could find another 100 who would gladly take the offered organ...
Look at it this way: Let's say your kids were massacred in a senseless robbery, where the murderers got away with exactly $87. Now, you might be happy to see the criminals living their comfortable life in prison, maybe even writing a book, or you could find condolance in the fact, that because of the death of your kids, let's say 10 people got perfectly healthy good lifesaving organs and now live a better life....
It is your choice how you look at it. I prefer the positive way...
Exactly; the safiest and easiest way, and a way that conserves space and resources, is simply to execute them. Then afterwards we can use their bodies for something useful, like organs or fertilizer or scientific studies
Exactly.
Perhaps someone else will take a crack at answering my simple questions.
one raven you might find that the reason no one has answered is that there ISNT a good reason for CP.
ALOT on death row have been found to be innocent (mostly after there excutions)
It doesnt deter people from commiting offences (as shown by the higher rates of capital offences in DP countries)
It is symply blood lust (look at norsefires responce)
It doesnt provide any sort of releif for the victoms families (i will try to find the comments by the former australian magistrate whos son was killed in the bali bombings latter)
ALOT on death row have been found to be innocent (mostly after there excutions)
It doesnt deter people from commiting offences (as shown by the higher rates of capital offences in DP countries)
It is symply blood lust (look at norsefires responce)
It doesnt provide any sort of releif for the victoms families (i will try to find the comments by the former australian magistrate whos son was killed in the bali bombings latter)
It just seems to me that the pro-arguments are not consistent at all, and the people who argue for it, don't seem to have really thought it through.
The way I look at it, if it is revenge, it is a poor example of it. If someone killed your son, killing that person does not cause him the same suffering at all - what would fit better would be something more along the lines of killing someone the killer loves. Of course that wouldn't be fair, would it? Ruining his life perhaps - wouldn't life in prison be a better means to that end than death?
If it is retribution, what reward are you getting from killing this person? Do you get a measure of joy from people dying? Are you not the same as the killer, then? Retribution for the loved ones of the victim perhaps? That seems awfully barbaric to say the least. Plus it seems to me that the loved ones wouldn't really benefit from this person dying. Furthermore, what if someone kills a homeless person or hermit with no loved ones? Should the killer go free? There is no one to offer retribution to.
The only possible argument I could see for capital punishment is simply to remove the person who has proven they can not or will not be a functional member of society. If they can not, it seems rather cruel to kill them for deficiencies under their control. If they will not, that implies that rehabilitation is possible.
I have to admit, that when I hear of someone committing a murder for pathetic reasons that I do not think is any justification, I shed no tears for their death. On the other hand, as Asguard pointed out, this particular guy appears to be an ideal candidate for some sort of ambassador program to speak to troubled kids.
The biggest problem I have with those who condone capital punishment is that most of them, in my experience, do not look at what causes the problem, they just look at the results of the problem and want them to go away.
Our greatest responsibility is to protect the innocent from the malevolent, correct? Isn't that the point of locking up violent offenders? If that is so, shouldn't we be looking at the issue pragmatically and attempt to determine how to best achieve that goal?
If you have a disease, you can treat the symptoms or the causes.
A discussion of captial punishment is woefully lacking if it does nto include the topics of rehabilitation, crime prevention and fighting the causes of the crimes.
Keep killing the criminals and there will always be more criminals - it keeps no one safe.
Figting the criminals is only a very small part of fighting crime, you have to fight the crimes themselves by digging them out by their roots.
The way I look at it, if it is revenge, it is a poor example of it. If someone killed your son, killing that person does not cause him the same suffering at all - what would fit better would be something more along the lines of killing someone the killer loves. Of course that wouldn't be fair, would it? Ruining his life perhaps - wouldn't life in prison be a better means to that end than death?
If it is retribution, what reward are you getting from killing this person? Do you get a measure of joy from people dying? Are you not the same as the killer, then? Retribution for the loved ones of the victim perhaps? That seems awfully barbaric to say the least. Plus it seems to me that the loved ones wouldn't really benefit from this person dying. Furthermore, what if someone kills a homeless person or hermit with no loved ones? Should the killer go free? There is no one to offer retribution to.
The only possible argument I could see for capital punishment is simply to remove the person who has proven they can not or will not be a functional member of society. If they can not, it seems rather cruel to kill them for deficiencies under their control. If they will not, that implies that rehabilitation is possible.
I have to admit, that when I hear of someone committing a murder for pathetic reasons that I do not think is any justification, I shed no tears for their death. On the other hand, as Asguard pointed out, this particular guy appears to be an ideal candidate for some sort of ambassador program to speak to troubled kids.
The biggest problem I have with those who condone capital punishment is that most of them, in my experience, do not look at what causes the problem, they just look at the results of the problem and want them to go away.
Our greatest responsibility is to protect the innocent from the malevolent, correct? Isn't that the point of locking up violent offenders? If that is so, shouldn't we be looking at the issue pragmatically and attempt to determine how to best achieve that goal?
If you have a disease, you can treat the symptoms or the causes.
A discussion of captial punishment is woefully lacking if it does nto include the topics of rehabilitation, crime prevention and fighting the causes of the crimes.
Keep killing the criminals and there will always be more criminals - it keeps no one safe.
Figting the criminals is only a very small part of fighting crime, you have to fight the crimes themselves by digging them out by their roots.
one raven, if we applie the biopschosocial method to crime it ends up blaming sociaty rather than the indervidual and i can see its point. Why should a "criminal" feel any atachment to a sociaty which says "dog eat dog is the only legitamiate way to live". So what your born in the slums, we arnt going to help you, we are only going to punish you further. Do you honestly think a sociaty where unemployment benifts are time limited, where there is no universal health care, where housing is a luxury is going to breed people with a conection to sociaty?
I already did, when I said all of the above. Now would you mind explaining what's wrong with retribution?
I don't see where you adressed the specific questions I asked.
Maybe I missed it.
From post #36 above...