DeletedUser8950
An intresting point. I still want to see what thealex says though.
DeletedUser5046
i say why dun they made another Alcatraz and put those REAL murderers there...tat way they wont escape...or try to escape...
if you kill someone because of self defense...wouldnt tat be counted as a crime? if you are pointed out as a murderer even if te real thing is tat you are a victim of a lie...is tat judgement to you? to convince a person to ignore te real fact of crime...to be convicted on te crime you did not make...and to kill someone who deserve to be dead (as what they are told)... geee:sad:
if you kill someone because of self defense...wouldnt tat be counted as a crime? if you are pointed out as a murderer even if te real thing is tat you are a victim of a lie...is tat judgement to you? to convince a person to ignore te real fact of crime...to be convicted on te crime you did not make...and to kill someone who deserve to be dead (as what they are told)... geee:sad:
DeletedUser
There is no necessity for police to be barbaric, or for the army to act in anything other than defence. I am not referring to an illusion but to actual morals.
You appear to have been corrupted by the values of the society in which you live. Just because in the US the police and the justice system are forces of injustice and oppression does not mean they automatically have to be. Your whole society is full of dangerous paradigms, the rhetoric used by your politicians is as insidious as the racism of your system of injustice. Slogans like "War on Drugs", "War on Terror" and "Tough on Crime" are used repeatedly by politicians who would be classed as criminals themselves in many countries for the legalised bribes they accept over there as 'campaign contributions'. Being 'Tough on Crime' creates an overly violent police force, and a criminal underclass to go with it. Having a 'War on Drugs' means an escalation of a small social problem into a huge and violent one, a 'War on Terror' is just ridiculous, war begets terror.
The only truly moral solution to crime in my opinion is through education, counselling and rehabilitation. Almost every criminal was a victim first. Maybe I am an idealist, but I see no reason to believe that a moral society is an illusion.
DeletedUser5046
i believe tat in some part of mah country..justice is ruling not through death penalty or life sentence but in other judgement they deserve such as making them tied on a tree and be bitten by ants ^^ or whatever...tat is not so harsh. . .what annoys me is when government make te army and te police people be involve in politics...tat's when and where te real crime takes place.
DeletedUser3717
It's up to mexico to do as they please.
Now I'm adressing the last 3 sentances of your paragraph, Rape is not so much diffrent as murder. Your forcing somebody to get intimate with you, Your beating them they are screaming. They could die.
I just find the whole law system a whole bunch of bull. Why should somebody who killed somebody be sentanced to death when somebody who rapes somebody can do what 30 years in prison then walk out and do what? Do it again.
Now don't say I don't know what I'm talkjing about, Because trust me Boyo I have had personal expirenced with one of my family members nearly getting attempted rape.
They should get a death sentance, They are just as bad even worse if you ask me. 30 years in prison... Bah... stupid... should be locked up for ever and rot in a cell.
DeletedUser
this is primarily pointed at Hellstromm
1)I am against the death penalty and do not condone torture so please don't lump me in with all those others. And as point of fact since a large portion of the folks who are against the Death Penalty are also members of Amnesty international or similar groups that argument doesn't hold water.
2)Yes our penal system is flawed because it is about punishment but not about rehabilitation (as it claims)
3)In reference to the moral issues. I find no justice in taking a life. And I certainly don't want my government to take one on my behalf.
4) You will find that a large # of Death Penalty supporters are Evangelical Christians. We already know what a bastion of hypocrisy that segment of the population is. Taking a life in revenge is not a very Christian concept.
5) I brought up the monetary issue because it is one of the things that people (as Gizmo did ) assume that keeping a prisoner alive is more costly.
For thealex
1)it has never been convincingly proven that the Death Penalty acts as a deterrent. In fact Capital offenses tend to occur more often in places where there is a Death Penalty Statute. The exact causation of this is not clear however. Two theories are expressed on the links I provided earlier. The first being the overall devaluing of human life when the state sees fit to engage in this sort of vengeful behavior. The second being that the death penalty is asked for more often as a bargaining chip by the DA's. Therefore more people are charged with potential death sentences than actually end up facing them.
In general, most of Europe has been doing just fine without Capital punishment for quite some time now. Why can't the US?
1)I am against the death penalty and do not condone torture so please don't lump me in with all those others. And as point of fact since a large portion of the folks who are against the Death Penalty are also members of Amnesty international or similar groups that argument doesn't hold water.
2)Yes our penal system is flawed because it is about punishment but not about rehabilitation (as it claims)
3)In reference to the moral issues. I find no justice in taking a life. And I certainly don't want my government to take one on my behalf.
4) You will find that a large # of Death Penalty supporters are Evangelical Christians. We already know what a bastion of hypocrisy that segment of the population is. Taking a life in revenge is not a very Christian concept.
5) I brought up the monetary issue because it is one of the things that people (as Gizmo did ) assume that keeping a prisoner alive is more costly.
For thealex
1)it has never been convincingly proven that the Death Penalty acts as a deterrent. In fact Capital offenses tend to occur more often in places where there is a Death Penalty Statute. The exact causation of this is not clear however. Two theories are expressed on the links I provided earlier. The first being the overall devaluing of human life when the state sees fit to engage in this sort of vengeful behavior. The second being that the death penalty is asked for more often as a bargaining chip by the DA's. Therefore more people are charged with potential death sentences than actually end up facing them.
In general, most of Europe has been doing just fine without Capital punishment for quite some time now. Why can't the US?
DeletedUser5046
because they have diferent perception about te word LAW...we have different thoughts about it...just tat word can mean many things to us...and if you ask me...making a thread about tat word will have a bunch of veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery debatable posts.... considering we are all in different countries and different behavior.it is certain tat we cant have what we want them to have...we cannot tell...and we cannot say they should do this or tat..
DeletedUser
angel is right on the money with that comment.
DeletedUser
I am completely opposed to the death penalty and while you have countered a few arguments here, Hellstromm, I believe that those arguments themselves (like cost or possible innocence), are simply counter arguments to supporting arguments presented on the other side. They are for me at least.
However, this statement you have made comes closest to the primary reason for my opposition so I am failing to see how it supports yours. (Though looking forward to hearing that!
)Like George, I agree that there is an issue of the brutalisation of a society and I place the needs of society over any interest in what happens to violent criminals. The fact that such brutalisation occurs in other areas of government behaviour (like the military) does not excuse this one, which is easily removed without any negative impact. (Which is where issues such as cost and recidivism and deterrance etc come in and there is plenty of evidence to show that those "pro" arguments are faulty.)
To be simplistic, my response to your argument that it allows us to keep our hands clean is that if your moral compass won't allow you to wring a chicken's neck yourself, don't eat chicken.
This barricade that we have between our consciences and the lie of impersonal "justice" is not something we should hold dear. It is something we should be extraordinarily wary of and vigilant about monitoring.
Say we still lived in very small communities... If someone came into my village and raped a woman there would I care that my community decided to go out in a group and kill that person? Certainly not. Because the entire community is effected by the crime and the entire community is personally responsible for (and effected by) the act of taking that person's life. Even village communities had systems of checks and balances against veangeance because they wished to avoid being drawn into "wars" with neighbouring communities.
But what we have now is not a system of checks and balances; it is a total abdication of personal responsibility for the punishment, and a total abstraction of "justice" from those who are actually the victims of the crime. It fails in all of its purposes.
We live as we now live, in huge communities which we identify with abstractly. When death becomes an abstract proposition, all conscience is removed from the equation. I'm sure there are many people who have no problem with that highly theoretical detachment but that is simply not good enough for me and I believe that it is very bad for the consciences which comprise our society as a whole.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I agree with most of what you are saying, but just because we are unknowingly and unwillingly complicit in greater wrongs, just by the advantages society has given us and the products we consume, does not make the death penalty right. Certainly it is not the worst thing the US government endorses, not by a long shot, but I still believe that it further brutalises a society already seemingly inured to injustice and violence.
DeletedUser
You mean the same conscience that exploits people in other lands?
There is a difference, in my book, between conscience and impassioned arrogance. I believe you have a conscience, as does George and a few others that posted in this thread. But, the United States as a whole, as a nation, as a governing force, has instituted a multitude of policies that foster exploitation of 3rd world nations' citizens. And, worse, these policies were enacted for profits. Ever worse, the businesses, run by this nation's citizens, that act on the opportunity presented.
The United States is not right in its righteousness, the correctional system is fundamentally flawed in its governance, and the rules of law are faulty in their application. It is impassioned arrogance to claim this nation is righteous in its cause and actions when such policies not only exist, but are encouraged to be maintained. It is impassioned arrogance to ignore the slaughter of innocents in the congo and to exploit innocence in the manufacturing of cocoa. It is impassioned arrogance to claim the right-to-choice of women, dismiss the right-to-life of a fetus, and yet scream for the right-to-life of convicted murderers.
It bothers me to no end when such trivial issues as the rights of monsters are debated while the rights of angels are trampled upon. A million claims to the goodness of our heart, a billion examples otherwise. We have a problem in this nation and it's not the death penalty, it's the life penalty. There are those who suffer because we release prisoners back into the mainstream. To argue against the death penalty may sound reasonable but, without a reasonable alternative, it is merely internal politics that are distracting from external atrocities.
There is a difference, in my book, between conscience and impassioned arrogance. I believe you have a conscience, as does George and a few others that posted in this thread. But, the United States as a whole, as a nation, as a governing force, has instituted a multitude of policies that foster exploitation of 3rd world nations' citizens. And, worse, these policies were enacted for profits. Ever worse, the businesses, run by this nation's citizens, that act on the opportunity presented.
The United States is not right in its righteousness, the correctional system is fundamentally flawed in its governance, and the rules of law are faulty in their application. It is impassioned arrogance to claim this nation is righteous in its cause and actions when such policies not only exist, but are encouraged to be maintained. It is impassioned arrogance to ignore the slaughter of innocents in the congo and to exploit innocence in the manufacturing of cocoa. It is impassioned arrogance to claim the right-to-choice of women, dismiss the right-to-life of a fetus, and yet scream for the right-to-life of convicted murderers.
It bothers me to no end when such trivial issues as the rights of monsters are debated while the rights of angels are trampled upon. A million claims to the goodness of our heart, a billion examples otherwise. We have a problem in this nation and it's not the death penalty, it's the life penalty. There are those who suffer because we release prisoners back into the mainstream. To argue against the death penalty may sound reasonable but, without a reasonable alternative, it is merely internal politics that are distracting from external atrocities.
DeletedUser
Sorry about that George. I deleted and reposted with some editing. Silly me.
But that's part of the problem George, we are not unknowingly or unwillingly complicit in greater wrongs. Countless articles have been written on it, many documentaries produced. This society has opted to ignore the external issues in favor of internal ones. It is only when our comforts are threatened that you find large chunks of citizenry rising up in arms on anything outside these borders.
The only presented alternative to the death penalty is removing them from society for the rest of their lives. The problem is they aren't held in prison for the rest of their lives, they are paroled (sooner now than before).
DeletedUser
I am talking about individuals, I personally am not willingly complicit in the exploitation of the third world, but it is almost impossible for me to avoid some level of complicity, and I very much doubt I am fully aware of the extent of such.
I will also repeat that I believe the solution for most criminals is one of education and rehabilitation. If a person is so dangerous that they cannot possibly, ever, be safely released into society, then they should probably be institutionalised and studied by behavioural therapists and psychiatrists, to work out what went so horribly wrong. The vast majority of criminals on death row in th US come from poor backgrounds and have lived in a culture of violence and crime since infancy. Just because the government and society in general have failed them, and oppressed them, all their lives, would you see them die? By allowing their execution, you are accepting, and endorsing, the treatment they suffered, that lead to their criminal nature.
I will also repeat that I believe the solution for most criminals is one of education and rehabilitation. If a person is so dangerous that they cannot possibly, ever, be safely released into society, then they should probably be institutionalised and studied by behavioural therapists and psychiatrists, to work out what went so horribly wrong. The vast majority of criminals on death row in th US come from poor backgrounds and have lived in a culture of violence and crime since infancy. Just because the government and society in general have failed them, and oppressed them, all their lives, would you see them die? By allowing their execution, you are accepting, and endorsing, the treatment they suffered, that lead to their criminal nature.
DeletedUser
I don't agree that society and the government oppressed anyone in the U.S. to commit crimes so horrendous that it would constitute lifetime imprisonment or the death penalty. That would take a helluva lot of oppression, and I've seen far worse oppression in other countries, yet far less gross criminal acts.
DeletedUser5046
George do you really think rehabilitating murderers could lessen te possibility tat they will commit te same mistke again after they are given a chance to be free again? you see..some criminals even if they are already in a good side...they cant easily clear their names of te crime theyve just commited...you think by letting hi realize tat he will not kill again? how about if he doesnt kill..but then commit a mistake tat is equal to a death sentence?
DeletedUser
I simply maintain my belief that the criminals within our society are the products of our society, I do not believe anyone is born a murderer. I also believe that to focus on punishment, capital or otherwise, rather than treatment for criminals is to deny the root causes of crime.
And Angel, I have met (briefly, on seperate occasions) a couple of convicted murderers, and they completely failed to kill me where I stood.
And Angel, I have met (briefly, on seperate occasions) a couple of convicted murderers, and they completely failed to kill me where I stood.
DeletedUser
I most certainly don't disagree with your priorities, but can these external atrocities be so easily separated? Isn't it all just the same same lie of "impartial" righteousness, allowed by societies whose justice/governmental system encourages atrophied consciences and defines all that is "bad" as "other". Certainly the harm does not even come close to comparing but it is my opinion that the one provides a supporting infrastructure for the other. Not in terms of causation, obviously, but the mindset is identical and the corelations are strong. If it can be removed at any level, it should be.
And for starters, people should lose the idea that rapists and murderers are monsters. They are human. Rape and murder is human behaviour. It is very easy to identify 20th century propaganda which represented the Japanese or the Jews (or even Muslims currently) as sub-human as ways in which our societies allow acts against those groups which would not normally be permitted, but it is actually a harder task to accept that the people who commit the most awful crimes are not "other".
Sex crimes, for example, are commonplace. Statistically, it is pretty much guaranteed we all know, and are possibly even friends with, someone who has committed one. And if it becomes known, it shouldn't be "shocking" because they are part of our social group. That is always how it is. It is denial of this very unpleasant reality which makes people feel "righteous" and the government simply mirrors this to us on a larger and more global scale at the same time as it feed it and feeds off it.
In my opinion, any place where this detachment and denial can be cut out of society, it should be. For me, it has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of criminals. In cases where I know the facts (and that is a far more stringent requirement than knowing the "verdict"), I can make my own judgement on the value/harm of that person continuing to live. In all other cases (ie; virtually all of them) I am not prepared to entrust that judgement or that power to an entity which is greater than the sum of its parts.
As for an alternative, there is an extremely obvious one, and one as old as time: Ostracism.
Obviously, we are no longer able to cast people from our communities without inflicting them upon others but a life sentence (and I mean an actual life sentence) serves the same function. Do I care if some are murdered in prisons or become more hardened? Not particularly, because in this case my assessment of all the corollary arguments (ie; cost/wrongfully convicted/ etc) is less than the benefit to society.
But any position which grants the government the right to execute as punishment, no matter how complex the codified restrictions are, is a sacrifice of individual conscience and individual responsibility that I don't believe any populace should consent to.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I think if you murder someone you should be executed. If you sexually assault someone you should be castrated. I think we should put a wall around Utah and put all of the worlds violent criminals there to do whatever the heck they want to do. Or gladiator fights. Also let people rent a gun at the wall and take pot shots at them at $50 a bullet.
DeletedUser
What happened to the gladiator arena!
DeletedUser
or we could put them all on Australia like they did years ago. but then again that will not work because there are people there. how about we put them on an Island were there are no other people.