Thoughts on the death penalty?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Uh, correct me if im wrong, but isnt it currently up to the states to decided? Maybe it was just the wording, but the way you said that makes it sound like it SHOULD be up to the states to decide, like it is not that way currently.

It should and is decided by the states. The conversation was more universal in context, and I think Bond wanted to emphasize that this decision is a very subjective one that should be made by communities, not nations. I think this should be the case with most subjective/social issues (death penalty, smoking in public places, abortion, etc.)

Personally I dont have a big problem with the death penalty, I think some people dont deserve to live. That may sound harsh but its what I believe, some people are just that terrible.

So makes that decision? Would you feel comfortable sentencing someone to death? What if they were innocent and you never found out until after they were killed?

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

So makes that decision? Would you feel comfortable sentencing someone to death? What if they were innocent and you never found out until after they were killed?

Yeah that question is the problem with it in the first place.. there needs to be some dramatic overwhelming evidence for the death penalty to be valid. Lets take the opposite situation..

Think of someone you love who is under the age of 18 (boy or girl), and lets say that there is video evidence of a man on trial brutaly raping the kid then killing them, and then selling the videos over the internet and making money off of it. And in the courtroom they are 100% unremorseful for it, and claims they enjoyed it and would do it again if they had the chance. Would you feel like that guy deserves a chance at life?

What would you consider a fitting penalty for that?

[Dylflon]

In the future, death row convicts will fight in gladiator arenas for our amusement.

Go ahead. Quote me on that.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Dylflon

In the future, death row convicts will fight in gladiator arenas for our amusement.

Go ahead. Quote me on that.

I've always believed this is the answer. Death Row island....the real reality show. We just place health packs and weapons and ammo in strategic locations on the island and set up some cameras....

Originally Posted by TheGame

I would disagree completly. You can't honestly say that you'd chose to die over sitting in a cell for the rest of yor life getting free (and instant) medical care, free food, and still being able to socialize. (You'd even get to see your wife/kids again, isn't that enough worth living for?) Now if the prisons were actually tougher by nature, and were a form of torture in a way... then I could see how someone would chose to die. But these days you still have a life, even behind bars.

I'd look into maximum security prison a bit more. It's more like solitary confinement most of the time, exercising in a 8x8 courtyard with no equipment for 30 minutes by yourself, having your food passed through a metal box Hannibal Lecter style (and it's not good food), getting your medication (if not voluntarily by force). These prisons have swat teams for cell extractions, they'll bag your head so you can't spit, pin you down and beat the shit out of you if you don't cooperate, and yeah. It's not a cool place to be. I believe restrictions get loosened a bit for good behavior, and I think it varies from psychiatric disorder and degree of murder.

Otherwise, I'll let you and Prof S carry on.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Yeah that question is the problem with it in the first place.. there needs to be some dramatic overwhelming evidence for the death penalty to be valid. Lets take the opposite situation..

Think of someone you love who is under the age of 18 (boy or girl), and lets say that there is video evidence of a man on trial brutaly raping the kid then killing them, and then selling the videos over the internet and making money off of it. And in the courtroom they are 100% unremorseful for it, and claims they enjoyed it and would do it again if they had the chance. Would you feel like that guy deserves a chance at life?

What would you consider a fitting penalty for that?

Maximum security prison for life with no chance of parole. The question isn't about punishment, but about the value of human life and who gets to make those decisions. I don't think we get t make those decisions unless we are trying to save our life or others. If prison can fit that need just as well, we should use it. Besides, prison is NOT pleasant and I would consider a life term a fate worse than death, honestly.

Also, the main reasoning behind the death penalty isn't that it is appropriate punishment, but that it is a deterrent. Maybe it used to be a deterrent, but it's so behind closed doors now that it's almost mythic in character. If it were made public, perhaps it would deter, but then we'd have something more abhorrent than I'd like to comprehend.

You don't have to kill someone to take their life. A lifetime of hard labor can be punsihment enough. Keep in mind, I'm also for alternative punishments as well. Say, if a child molester elects to castrate himself for parole, I'm all for it. The goal should be to correct and/or prevent behavior, not to apply vengeance.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

Maximum security prison for life with no chance of parole. The question isn't about punishment, but about the value of human life and who gets to make those decisions. I don't think we get t make those decisions unless we are trying to save our life or others. If prison can fit that need just as well, we should use it. Besides, prison is NOT pleasant and I would consider a life term a fate worse than death, honestly.

I would disagree completly. You can't honestly say that you'd chose to die over sitting in a cell for the rest of yor life getting free (and instant) medical care, free food, and still being able to socialize. (You'd even get to see your wife/kids again, isn't that enough worth living for?) Now if the prisons were actually tougher by nature, and were a form of torture in a way... then I could see how someone would chose to die. But these days you still have a life, even behind bars.

You don't have to kill someone to take their life. A lifetime of hard labor can be punsihment enough. Keep in mind, I'm also for alternative punishments as well. Say, if a child molester elects to castrate himself for parole, I'm all for it. The goal should be to correct and/or prevent behavior, not to apply vengeance.

I disagree, if you let a person like that go no matter what they did, its a huge risk of the family of the victim taking things into their own hands. If you take the example from my previous post (and I'm talking REALLY taking it into consideration), and the guy castrated himself to get out on parole, and you met them in a store face to face knowing what they did without a doubt...

Well, lets just say that's one of those situations where human's "animal nature" comes out. You're not going to be able to think straight, trust me.

Here's what I think the problems are:
1) The death penalty has been given to people who are innocent.
2) The alternative to death (going to prison) is not harsh enough punishment for some crimes.

Here's what I think the solutions would be:
1) Death penalty should only be reserved for crimes that are public displays, and that are caught on tape. And when its sentanced it should hapen quickly, instead of allowing the govt to waste tons of money on keeping them on death row.
2) If someone is found guilty of a crime that gives them a life sentance.. we should have much harder prisons that are harsh enough to give the prisoner the illusion that they're dead. No visitation, no TV, no reading, no socializing, just a bed, 4 walls, and 3 meals. No parole, either.
3) IF someone is found guilty and sentanced to a life sentance and they're eventually found to be innocent of the crime. The government should provide some type of aide to the prisoner for the rest of their life because this occurance is the result of a broken judgement system.


That's just my opinions on it. I value human life just as much as the next guy, but some people do deserve to die.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

I would disagree completly. You can't honestly say that you'd chose to die over sitting in a cell for the rest of yor life getting free (and instant) medical care, free food, and still being able to socialize. (You'd even get to see your wife/kids again, isn't that enough worth living for?) Now if the prisons were actually tougher by nature, and were a form of torture in a way... then I could see how someone would chose to die. But these days you still have a life, even behind bars.

I think your view of prison is a bit rose colored. I'd rather not have to join a racial gang to avoid being sexually abused and/or traded around by other inmates, worrying about whether or not I'm going to get beat up, raped or stabbed on any given day. I'd rather not go though the mental torment of watching my family's utter and complete shame in me and then watch as they grow more distant and finally (hopefully) disappear.

I guess in the end, the death penalty has proven itself to have zero effect as a deterrent (violent crime and murder rates have risen over time and use of the death penalty), so what is the point of the action? Once again, you can have someone put away for life with the same effect (he/she never commits the crime again). Anything else is a grotesque vengeance fantasy, IMO, and one where mistakes can and will be made.

[TheGame]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I think your view of prison is a bit rose colored. I'd rather not have to join a racial gang to avoid being sexually abused and/or traded around by other inmates, worrying about whether or not I'm going to get beat up, raped or stabbed on any given day. I'd taher not go though the mental torment of watching my family's utter and complete shame in me and then watch as they grow more distant and finally (hopefully) disappear.

So you'd chose to die instead of going to prison for life?

I guess in the end, the death penalty has proven itself to have zero effect as a deterrent (violent crime and murder rates have risen over time and use of the death penalty), so what is the point of the action? Once again, you can have someone put away for life with the same effect (he/she never commits the crime again). Anything else is a grotesque vengeance fantasy, IMO, and one where mistakes can and will be made.

Violent crime has been rising period. The death penalty isn't going to change that. The point of it is to punish people for the crimes that they commit. Life sentances hasn't helped the situation any more then the death penalty has.

If you want to talk about deterrants preventing death, lets talk about war. If death cannot be justified under our system of law in our own country, what gives us the right to go out and kill other people in other countries for their international crimes? (Or for simply standing in the way of us getting the people who commited it) Is this because a millitary works as a deterrent, and it actually lowers the amount of fighting that happens in the world?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

So you'd chose to die instead of going to prison for life?

No, I'd rather die than go to prison for life. I would not choose to die, but I'd rather be dead. But thats just me, and I would not impose that on another human or state that they should have the same opinion.

Violent crime has been rising period. The death penalty isn't going to change that. The point of it is to punish people for the crimes that they commit. Life sentances hasn't helped the situation any more then the death penalty has.

Exactly, so why choose the option that is irreversable if the guilty is proven over time to be innocent? Punishment on any level hasn't proven to be a deterrent in violent crime so in the end you can lock up someone to prevent them from killing, or kill them out of anger and vengeance. I choose the less destructive and reversible option.

If you want to talk about deterrants preventing death, lets talk about war. If death cannot be justified under our system of law in our own country, what gives us the right to go out and kill other people in other countries for their international crimes? (Or for simply standing in the way of us getting the people who commited it) Is this because a millitary works as a deterrent, and it actually lowers the amount of fighting that happens in the world?

No, as I said, killing is justified if it is in self-defence. Now we can argue whether or not all wars have been fought our of self-defence, but that does not alter the fact that wars can and are often fought justly if only for self-preservation. Of course pre-emptive self-defence always brings it's own dubious and vague definitions of morality. Now I can see this easily degrading into a Iraq war tangent. so lets avoid that and keep the discussion high level, shall we?

If one side is morally wrong for attacking another country and it's people, then to defend oneself against their attackers must be morally right.