Death Penalty

[jetje]

Seeing the Sadam poll i was wondering what people think of it in general?

I often wonder myself what is the worst punishment. Personally i think that if someone is sentenced for life without a chance to get out get a harder punishment then someone that's sentenced to death. Why the last one only suffers for a short time while imprissoned for life gives the person a very long time to think about what he has done! Also it is not so definitive solution, in case of false conviction, which sometimes happens ;)
Also don't really believe in the eye for an eye punishment.

So basicly, i'm against it.

[J'Pol]

It is institutionalised murder.

I am against it, in every circumstance.

Tho' I am finding it difficult to answer "are you for or against it" with a yes or no.

[j2k4]

I can't choose, but for other reasons.

I feel that if we could somehow combine the death penalty with life imprisonment, we might approach proper punishment.

This is one area where I give full rein to my feelings, rather than my logic.

I am aware of how this view must seem to others, but there you have it.

[J'Pol]

Can I assume that :

Yes = For It.

No = Against It.

[Busyman]

I am for it but only because there is an absence of another punishment......exile.
I would propose a "jailing" similiar to that of the movie No Escape. The worst of the worst is put on an island with others of their like. Therefore government can wash their hands of murder (which the death penalty is).
There is barley enough room, at least in the US, for the prisoners we already have.

Exile the vermin away and monitor the island for those trying to escape. If they kill each other, so be it.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J'Pol@18 December 2003 - 22:03
Can I assume that :

Yes = For It.

No = Against It.
Very good J' Pol ;)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman+18 December 2003 - 23:04--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 18 December 2003 - 23:04)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@18 December 2003 - 22:03
Can I assume that :

Yes = For It.

No = Against It.
Very good J&#39; Pol ;) [/b][/quote]
Is that a yes :blink:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Busyman@18 December 2003 - 18:03
I am for it but only because there is an absence of another punishment......exile.
I would propose a "jailing" similiar to that of the movie No Escape. The worst of the worst is put on an island with others of their like. Therefore government can wash their hands of murder (which the death penalty is).
There is barley enough room, at least in the US, for the prisoners we already have.

Exile the vermin away and monitor the island for those trying to escape. If they kill each other, so be it.
I think you&#39;ve hit on it directly, sir.

Unending fear and isolation.

And no access to appeal. ;)

What a comforting thought. :)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4+18 December 2003 - 23:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 18 December 2003 - 23:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@18 December 2003 - 18:03
I am for it but only because there is an absence of another punishment......exile.
I would propose a "jailing" similiar to that of the movie No Escape. The worst of the worst is put on an island with others of their like. Therefore government can wash their hands of murder (which the death penalty is).
There is barley enough room, at least in the US, for the prisoners we already have.

Exile the vermin away and monitor the island for those trying to escape. If they kill each other, so be it.
I think you&#39;ve hit on it directly, sir.

Unending fear and isolation.

And no access to appeal. ;)

What a comforting thought. :) [/b][/quote]
For what crimes would you advocate this Draconian punishment chaps.

[jetje]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@18 December 2003 - 23:03
Can I assume that :

Yes = For It.

No = Against It.
yes J&#39;Pol that&#39;s how it was ment. Adjusted the poll options now so it&#39;s more clear. thnx

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by jetje+18 December 2003 - 23:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jetje @ 18 December 2003 - 23:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@18 December 2003 - 23:03
Can I assume that :

Yes = For It.

No = Against It.
yes J&#39;Pol that&#39;s how it was ment. Adjusted the poll options now so it&#39;s more clear. thnx [/b][/quote]
Cheers JJ

A gentleman as ever.

[ilw]

Zap &#39;em all and let god sort &#39;em out I always say.


Exile the vermin away and monitor the island for those trying to escape. If they kill each other, so be it.
Or better yet televise it, people can&#39;t get enough of reality tv these days.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+18 December 2003 - 22:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol &#064; 18 December 2003 - 22:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@18 December 2003 - 23:07
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@18 December 2003 - 18:03
I am for it but only because there is an absence of another punishment......exile.
I would propose a "jailing" similiar to that of the movie No Escape. The worst of the worst is put on an island with others of their like. Therefore government can wash their hands of murder (which the death penalty is).
There is barley enough room, at least in the US, for the prisoners we already have.

Exile the vermin away and monitor the island for those trying to escape. If they kill each other, so be it.
I think you&#39;ve hit on it directly, sir.

Unending fear and isolation.

And no access to appeal. ;)

What a comforting thought. :)
For what crimes would you advocate this Draconian punishment chaps. [/b][/quote]
Any crime that would normally get the death penalty. It would merely be a substitute.
@J&#39;Pol -I know it is harsh but so is death. So in this instance there is no murder-by-government.
@j2k4 -Unending fear and isolation can be a reality in jail as well as on an island with other convicts. When one is put to death there is no appeals process...they&#39;re dead&#33;&#33;&#33; In America, we would still have the same long, drawn out appeals process that may or may not save a defendant from exile.
As I said it would be a mere substitution.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman+18 December 2003 - 23:37--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 18 December 2003 - 23:37)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@18 December 2003 - 22:09

Originally posted by j2k4@18 December 2003 - 23:07
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@18 December 2003 - 18:03
I am for it but only because there is an absence of another punishment......exile.
I would propose a "jailing" similiar to that of the movie No Escape. The worst of the worst is put on an island with others of their like. Therefore government can wash their hands of murder (which the death penalty is).
There is barley enough room, at least in the US, for the prisoners we already have.

Exile the vermin away and monitor the island for those trying to escape. If they kill each other, so be it.
I think you&#39;ve hit on it directly, sir.

Unending fear and isolation.

And no access to appeal. ;)

What a comforting thought. :)
For what crimes would you advocate this Draconian punishment chaps.
Any crime that would normally get the death penalty. It would merely be a substitute. [/b][/quote]
There is no crime which would normally get the death penalty where I am.

Indeed aren&#39;t there different rules throughout the world for this.

Even if you limit it to the USA, don&#39;t different states have different sentencing policy.

You would really have to be more specific, for the purposes of the debate old bean.

[Busyman]

Interesting. My application was very specific. If what I said was a substitute for the DEATH PENALTY and a certain place (such as yours) doesn&#39;t have it then it really doens&#39;t apply does it? If it is the will of the people, they can always bring it to your country can&#39;t they? (I am not familiar with your laws)
I am guessing you are referring to (in the US) murder and treason.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman@18 December 2003 - 23:59
Interesting. My application was very specific. If what I said was a substitute for the DEATH PENALTY and a certain place (such as yours) doesn&#39;t have it then it really doens&#39;t apply does it? If it is the will of the people, they can always bring it to your country can&#39;t they? (I am not familiar with your laws)
I am guessing you are referring to (in the US) murder and treason.
Good point.

You propose substituting the death penalty with your exile, only where the death penalty already exists. I understand that now.

I have no idea which states in the USA have the death penalty, or for what. Though I assume you are correct on the murder and treason front.

Edit - I just realised - you could call it Australia.

[Busyman]

Apologies for not being perspicuous.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman@19 December 2003 - 00:15
Apologies for not being perspicuous.
Sorry, I&#39;m not entirely sure what you mean.

Could you clarify for an old man,

[oldmancan]

A simply question with no easy answer (the best kind).

I support the death penalty as punishment. I do not believe justice is served by government sanctioned murder. Nor do I have complete faith in the metering of justice by the state (any state or government). Likewise, I don&#39;t think every crime carrying the death penalty necessarily warrants it.

I believe in the social contract, I want to be part of this society, so I will abide by its laws. If I break the laws, I will face the consequences. The worst consequence would seem to be that the society continues without the individual.

I see two options here. One, the individual is removed/withdrawls from the society (i.e. imprisonment or exile) and both carry on. The second, the society terminates the individual and carries on.

I think the underlying tenet of the social contract is that the good of the whole superceeds the rights of the individual.

That&#39;s as simple as I can make it.

I know that injustices will occur. I am bothered by that. Although not as much as by injustices that occur when a repeat offender kills another cop, or rapes another baby.

peace omc

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+18 December 2003 - 23:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 18 December 2003 - 23:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@19 December 2003 - 00:15
Apologies for not being perspicuous.
Sorry, I&#39;m not entirely sure what you mean.

Could you clarify for an old man, [/b][/quote]
Apologies again...........easy to understand, clear, comprehensible.

[oldmancan]

:P

Webster&#39;s 1913 Dictionary

Definition: &#092;Per*spic"u*ous&#092;, a. [L. perspicuus, from perspicere
to look through. See {Perspective}.]
1. Capable of being through; transparent; translucent; not
opaque. [Obs.] --Peacham.

2. Clear to the understanding; capable of being clearly
understood; clear in thought or in expression; not obscure
or ambiguous; as, a perspicuous writer; perspicuous
statements. ``The purpose is perspicuous.&#39;&#39; --Shak. --
{Per*spic"u*ous*ly}, adv. -- {Per*spic"u*ous*ness}, n.


peace omc

edit: I know my dictionry is old ...had it since middle school. ;)

edit: can&#39;t spell dictioary without checking one, doh :unsure:

edit: word book :blink:

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman+19 December 2003 - 00:22--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 19 December 2003 - 00:22)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@18 December 2003 - 23:18
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@19 December 2003 - 00:15
Apologies for not being perspicuous.
Sorry, I&#39;m not entirely sure what you mean.

Could you clarify for an old man,
Apologies again...........easy to understand, clear, comprehensible. [/b][/quote]
Quite ironic then.

[Busyman]

The old dictionaries are the best. The new ones have these crazy new words and descriptive sentences.

..off subject

Irony....ain&#39;t dat sumthin&#39;

[100%]

Costs of the Death Penalty

North Carolina spends &#036;2.16 million more per execution than on a non-death penalty murder case

Florida spends &#036;51 million extra per year on death penalty.

California spends &#036;90 million annually beyond ordinary costs of justice system.

Each death penalty case costs Texas average of &#036;2.3 million.

SOURCE (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Zedaxax@19 December 2003 - 02:33

Costs of the Death Penalty

North Carolina spends &#036;2.16 million more per execution than on a non-death penalty murder case

Florida spends &#036;51 million extra per year on death penalty.

California spends &#036;90 million annually beyond ordinary costs of justice system.

Each death penalty case costs Texas average of &#036;2.3 million.

SOURCE (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7)
The flaw with my application, substituting exile for death, is that those costs would most likely remain.
The only saving grace is that exile is a little more palatable to a juror or judge that may have circumscriptions about putting someone to death thus making the case shorter, not as prominent and that, perchance, will save money.

This application could be expanded to certain life sentences as well. For many, being resigned to jail is no problem: three meals a day, shower, shit, and even shave. But hold exile over them and give them that ambiguity of getting their next meal and maybe they will think before slitting that girls throat.

[Evil Gemini]

Originally posted by ilw@18 December 2003 - 23:20
Zap &#39;em all and let god sort &#39;em out I always say.


Exile the vermin away and monitor the island for those trying to escape. If they kill each other, so be it.
Or better yet televise it, people can&#39;t get enough of reality tv these days.
That would be awsome&#33;&#33; :devil:

And have guns and Ammo all over the island. :rolleyes:

[FatBastard]

I&#39;m for the death penalty if it can be proved beyond any doubt the person was guilty. That arsehole who killed the two little girls in Soham deserves nothing less.

[Evil Gemini]

But woudnt death be an easy way out ?

I would rather get gassed then be in jail for the rest of my life so i think a better punishment would be in jail for the rest of his life.

[Alex H]

What do you think about life in prison, with an option for euthenasia? If you&#39;re sorry for what you&#39;ve done and are ready to make your peace with whoever you need to make it with...

It&#39;s not necessarily an "easy way out" either. I think it could be a fair choice.

And it would be a lot less costly too. Hey, if I was banged up with a "Never To Be Released" sign around my neck I&#39;d off myself just to save the hundrends of thousands of dollars it would cost to imprison me for the next 60 years.

Then again, I&#39;m probable a bit more community minded than many mass murderers...

[ilw]

I would rather get gassed then be in jail for the rest of my life so i think a better punishment would be in jail for the rest of his life.


Hey, if I was banged up with a "Never To Be Released" sign around my neck I&#39;d off myself just to save the hundrends of thousands of dollars it would cost to imprison me for the next 60 years.


jokes or lies ? :unsure:

[blade1356uk]

The death penalty was abolished in the UK around the late 50s,but it has been questioned by the murders of Jessica & Holly last August 2002, even Ian Huntley&#39;s own Mother has stated he should hang,although the death penalty has caused many innocent people to die,with DNA evidence is now available,It is now time to rethink the death penalty in the UK.But the main problem being the anti do good society,who in my mind has caused a culture of we do not give a toss unless it happens to us.The Police in the UK are a pathetic bunch of lazy workshy tossers,you never see a copper on the beat no more,because they are on the TV or flying about in a helicopter,instead of doing what they are paid to do & that is to serve & protect.

[Evil Gemini]

Hey, if I was banged up with a "Never To Be Released" sign around my neck I&#39;d off myself just to save the hundrends of thousands of dollars it would cost to imprison me for the next 60 years

Yeah like if i was in jail for 60 years i would be thinking to kill my self to save the prison money :lol:

Saving money for the prison would be the absolute last thing on my mind (i dont think it would be in my mind) I would be worried about getting my ass kicked.

And yes, i think death is an easy way out. WOuld you rather be dead or have your ass used as big jabba&#39;s sex toy for the rest of your life.

Then again, if you were some kick ass fighter, you might like the idea of going to jail for the fights. :rolleyes: I know i would (if i could fight bad ass).

[james_bond_rulez]

there is no death penalties in Canada ;)

only happy times in jail, smokin weeds, drinkin beer :lol:

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by FatBastard@19 December 2003 - 09:06
I&#39;m for the death penalty if it can be proved beyond any doubt the person was guilty. That arsehole who killed the two little girls in Soham deserves nothing less.
Aside from the fact that I am totally against the death penalty, under any circumstances. That would not work, how could you ever remove any and all doubt.

The arsehole in Soham wants the death penalty. It is more punishment and more of a deterrent to keep him in prison for the next 50 or 60 years. He is a constant reminder to us of what some people are capable of. He will also be kept in practical isolation, other than the obligatory guards looking the other way for his beatings.

You only have to look at Brady and Hindley and how their continued existence has served as a reminder to us all. We even force fed him to keep him alive, when he tried to starve to death.

[ThePlasticSurgeon]

I have a cracker of a question for the members of this board (who oppose the death penalty). However I feel that it would cause this thread to be closed. So I will refrain from asking said question.

I oppose the death penalty for the following reasons: Prison for the rest of a persons life would be much more unbearable*
Society does not yet have fullproof methods to determine the verdict of a trial
I can&#39;t think of any more

*Probably not the case if you live in the United Kingdom as I have heard the justice system their has extremely short sentences for dangerous crimes.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by ThePlasticSurgeon@19 December 2003 - 17:26
I have a cracker of a question for the members of this board (who oppose the death penalty). However I feel that it would cause this thread to be closed. So I will refrain from asking said question.


Oh - go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on,go on, go on, go on, go on, go on.

You know you want to and we love cracking questions. It will take a lot to get a thread closed here. We are much more liberal in our tolerance of the extreme. Indeed it is positively encouraged.

[ilw]

I have a cracker of a question for the members of this board (who oppose the death penalty). However I feel that it would cause this thread to be closed. So I will refrain from asking said question.

just ask it, I&#39;m sure it&#39;ll be fine. Worst comes to the worst the posts can be removed

PS i don&#39;t really know for sure, but i&#39;m under the impression that the UK is not that light on punishment, but there are occasional cases in the media...

Edit: :lol: just saw Mrs Doyle&#39;s post

[DarthInsinuate]

I&#39;m for the death penalty

What good does a lifetime imprisonment do? Isn&#39;t locking them away just cruel?

plus I&#39;m sure the taxes that pay for the rope to hang someone is less than that to feed and house them

[ThePlasticSurgeon]

This is your last warning. Scroll down to see the specific question:

























































If you are against the death penalty are you also against abortions? If not then please explain why?

[ilw]

:sleeping: been there done that thread

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by ThePlasticSurgeon@19 December 2003 - 17:39
If you are against the death penalty are you also against abortions? If not then please explain why?
Like the man said there have been protracted discussions on this. My answer in a nutshell is Yes, I am also fundamentally opposed to abortion.

I consider the taking of a human life to be morally wrong. I do not think that the state doing it makes any difference. There are situations where choices have to be made, however this is not the place for protracted discussions on that particular issue.

That would just be hi-jacking JJ&#39;s thread, which he started to discuss the death penalty, in light of the current situation in Iraq.

[ZeroTolerance]

im against it 100 percent because nobody has the right to take your life or my life except GOD&#33; :D

[Mïcrösöül°V³]

im for the death penalty when the accused is just one nasty bastard, like osama bin raghead, and child rapists. along those lines.

[Mavol]

No man should be killed for what he has done wrong, he must walk the earth and be laughed at the rest of his life.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by jerome18+19 December 2003 - 21:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jerome18 &#064; 19 December 2003 - 21:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@19 December 2003 - 20:25
<!--QuoteBegin-jerome18@19 December 2003 - 19:53
im against it 100 percent because nobody has the right to take your life or my life except GOD&#33; :D

then don&#39;t break the law&#33;&#33;&#33;


What about that cougar that&#39;s chasing you down the mountain?
who said broke the law u dumb ass?&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; :D [/b][/quote]
I would normally torch you for that remark but I am trying to refrain.

Read the topic. What are we talking about? Read carefully.
D-E-A-T-H-P-E-N-A-L-T-Y

RELATES TO BBBRRREEEAAAKKKIIINNGGG TTTHHHEE LLLAAAWWW&#33;&#33;

If one does not break a certain law in a death penalty state or country, then one does not have to worry about receiving the penalty.

(just because there is a smiley with your remark, does not make it any less insulting, please take that shit to the lounge)

[J'Pol]

It&#39;s really interesting that you said state or country, rather than the other way round.

At least it interests me.

[jetje]

topic cleaned out, read the specific forum rules for this part of the forum. Keep things decent and on topic please ;)

[Busyman]

To all those opposed to the death penalty, what would be your solution to prison overcrowding?
Here in the states we have some of the worst crime rates in world (I&#39;ve been told).

[adjective-noun-number]

I&#39;m against the death penalty but also against these cushy prison we send these bastards to.

I suggest isolation in a small room with a barred window, Elizabeth Bathory style. B)

EDIT: There would be no overcrowding if we kept them, ON THE MOON. The moon can be the new Australia.

[Mavol]

well i dont think we can just dump &#39;em somewhere. maybe a good brainwash would work :nono:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Mavol@21 December 2003 - 14:03
well i dont think we can just dump &#39;em somewhere. maybe a good brainwash would work :nono:
Brainwash? Too many dollars for something that mostly won&#39;t work. Anyway, why should society have to go through such lengths to make a person fly right. We pay enough with psychiatrists, food, shelter, and guards.

Why can&#39;t we just "dump them somewhere" if we were ready to kill them before?

[Alex H]

Hey, you know the term "...for the rest of your natural life."

Well a mate of mine was in a car accident and "died" on the operating table. He was revived, so although he is 26 he has a second birthday which makes him 14.

So, does that mean if your heart stops for the required length of time to be declared legally dead, and you are then revived, you "naturally" died and therefor can get out of prison?

Cryogenics?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Alex H@22 December 2003 - 03:16
Hey, you know the term "...for the rest of your natural life."

Well a mate of mine was in a car accident and "died" on the operating table. He was revived, so although he is 26 he has a second birthday which makes him 14.

So, does that mean if your heart stops for the required length of time to be declared legally dead, and you are then revived, you "naturally" died and therefor can get out of prison?

Cryogenics?
uhhhh...no <_<

[chalice]

Originally posted by Alex H@22 December 2003 - 03:16
Hey, you know the term "...for the rest of your natural life."

Well a mate of mine was in a car accident and "died" on the operating table. He was revived, so although he is 26 he has a second birthday which makes him 14.

So, does that mean if your heart stops for the required length of time to be declared legally dead, and you are then revived, you "naturally" died and therefor can get out of prison?

Cryogenics?
Go here. (http://klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showforum=5) You&#39;ll do well.

[Alex H]

Thank you chalice :lol:

Seriously, if you are legally dead for even a few minutes that means you are "legally" dead. (Oh great I walked into that one)

So if you&#39;re dead, technically you get you&#39;re debt wiped, release from jail, etc.

I&#39;d be interested to hear opinions from j2k4, J&#39;Pol and hobbes especially. Judging from the previous responses they would be the only ones around here with opinions worth listening to.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Alex H@22 December 2003 - 06:58
Thank you chalice :lol:

Seriously, if you are legally dead for even a few minutes that means you are "legally" dead. (Oh great I walked into that one)

So if you&#39;re dead, technically you get you&#39;re debt wiped, release from jail, etc.

I&#39;d be interested to hear opinions from j2k4 and hobbes especially.
They just throw the switch again...dude. <_<

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H@22 December 2003 - 02:58

Seriously, if you are legally dead for even a few minutes that means you are "legally" dead. (Oh great I walked into that one)

So if you&#39;re dead, technically you get you&#39;re debt wiped, release from jail, etc.

I&#39;d be interested to hear opinions from j2k4, J&#39;Pol and hobbes especially. Judging from the previous responses they would be the only ones around here with opinions worth listening to.
I propose this um, loophole be closed immediately.

One should not escape one&#39;s debt&#39;s and penalties with the help of miracles.

The seculars would surely demand the Diety speak more clearly, in any case.

Also, I believe the "few minutes" condition applies to death in the clinical sense, not the legal.

They may be coincident, or there may be another definition, I do not know.

I don&#39;t think I&#39;ve ever heard of a legal application of "death" such as would apply in this case.

It may also be that God does not grant this type of miracle to debtors or other criminals.

The occasional defective "hanging rope" I would attribute to human incompetence or intervention.

I apologize if my post doesn&#39;t reflect some important point made elsewhere in this thread; I haven&#39;t read all of it.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by j2k4@22 December 2003 - 19:45


I apologize if my post doesn&#39;t reflect some important point made elsewhere in this thread; I haven&#39;t read all of it.
I think you could at least do us the courtesy of reading your own post, before inflicting it upon us, it seems only fair.

[camille]

In my country there was a moratorium for death penalty but recently it was restored because of rampant criminal cases.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Alex H@22 December 2003 - 04:16
Hey, you know the term "...for the rest of your natural life."

Well a mate of mine was in a car accident and "died" on the operating table. He was revived, so although he is 26 he has a second birthday which makes him 14.

So, does that mean if your heart stops for the required length of time to be declared legally dead, and you are then revived, you "naturally" died and therefor can get out of prison?

Cryogenics?
I am not au fait with the term " .... for the rest of your natural life", it may be an American thing. In the UK would the person not be sentenced to life imprisonment. Or is that phrase used in UK courts.

The Judge often makes a minimum term to be served recommendation. I&#39;m not sure if that is always the case. Bear in mind that life does in fact mean life, the person is never truly released, they get out on licence and can be put back in prison at any time.

In any jurisdiction where your phrase is used, are you suggesting that anyone who is revived is no longer living a natural life. What exactly do you think unnatural about it. In what way is it different from anyone else being alive.

In essence I don&#39;t really see your point, however others may.

[Skillian]

I&#39;m against the death penalty. The way I see it, If there are laws saying you cannot knowingly kill someone, then those laws apply to everyone. Even disregarding that law I still find it morally very wrong - no one should have the right to take someone&#39;s life, simple as that.

As for which punishment is more expensive and whether it helps prison overcrowding, I don&#39;t believe either of these administrative issues should taken into account at all - there are more important things at stake.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+22 December 2003 - 14:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 22 December 2003 - 14:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@22 December 2003 - 19:45


I apologize if my post doesn&#39;t reflect some important point made elsewhere in this thread; I haven&#39;t read all of it.
I think you could at least do us the courtesy of reading your own post, before inflicting it upon us, it seems only fair. [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks, JP.

I needed that.

Badly.

:D :D :)

[ZeroTolerance]

Originally posted by Skillian@22 December 2003 - 19:06
I&#39;m against the death penalty. The way I see it, If there are laws saying you cannot knowingly kill someone, then those laws apply to everyone. Even disregarding that law I still find it morally very wrong - no one should have the right to take someone&#39;s life, simple as that.

As for which punishment is more expensive and whether it helps prison overcrowding, I don&#39;t believe either of these administrative issues should taken into account at all - there are more important things at stake.
I Agree

[Busyman]

Originally posted by jerome18+22 December 2003 - 20:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jerome18 @ 22 December 2003 - 20:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Skillian@22 December 2003 - 19:06
I&#39;m against the death penalty. The way I see it, If there are laws saying you cannot knowingly kill someone, then those laws apply to everyone. Even disregarding that law I still find it morally very wrong - no one should have the right to take someone&#39;s life, simple as that.

As for which punishment is more expensive and whether it helps prison overcrowding, I don&#39;t believe either of these administrative issues should taken into account at all - there are more important things at stake.
I Agree [/b][/quote]
Like what??

[Sparkle1984]

Originally posted by Busyman+22 December 2003 - 20:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 22 December 2003 - 20:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by jerome18@22 December 2003 - 20:51
<!--QuoteBegin-Skillian@22 December 2003 - 19:06
I&#39;m against the death penalty. The way I see it, If there are laws saying you cannot knowingly kill someone, then those laws apply to everyone. Even disregarding that law I still find it morally very wrong - no one should have the right to take someone&#39;s life, simple as that.

As for which punishment is more expensive and whether it helps prison overcrowding, I don&#39;t believe either of these administrative issues should taken into account at all - there are more important things at stake.
I Agree
Like what?? [/b][/quote]
I agree as well. That no-one should have the right to take a life, for any reason whatsoever, otherwise it would be the start of a "slippery slope". There would always be a risk that the authorities might (at some time in the future) abuse the death penalty, and execute dissenters.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Sparkle1984+22 December 2003 - 21:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Sparkle1984 @ 22 December 2003 - 21:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@22 December 2003 - 20:24

Originally posted by jerome18@22 December 2003 - 20:51
<!--QuoteBegin-Skillian@22 December 2003 - 19:06
I&#39;m against the death penalty. The way I see it, If there are laws saying you cannot knowingly kill someone, then those laws apply to everyone. Even disregarding that law I still find it morally very wrong - no one should have the right to take someone&#39;s life, simple as that.

As for which punishment is more expensive and whether it helps prison overcrowding, I don&#39;t believe either of these administrative issues should taken into account at all - there are more important things at stake.
I Agree
Like what??
I agree as well. That no-one should have the right to take a life, for any reason whatsoever, otherwise it would be the start of a "slippery slope". There would always be a risk that the authorities might (at some time in the future) abuse the death penalty, and execute dissenters. [/b][/quote]
You must live in a country without the death penalty. In America we&#39;ve had it for decades and you have to do a pretty heinous crime.
No one has responded with a much more important thing at stake than expense and prison overcrowding.

[J'Pol]

I think that peoples lives are more important than expense and prison overcrowding. As do several other posters.

Do you have an actual point, or do you simply chose to ignore that which does not support your position.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@23 December 2003 - 03:13
I think that peoples lives are more important than expense and prison overcrowding. As do several other posters.

Do you have an actual point, or do you simply chose to ignore that which does not support your position.
Well J&#39;Pol I do not think a person&#39;s life is important when that person takes another in the extreme circumstances. I&#39;m not ignoring the responses. I&#39;m looking to hear a response that is not a basic copy and paste of mine or the others here.

I understand alot of posters are saying "It is wrong to take a life under any circumstances" but I wanted to hear some solutions other than exile or the prison system we have today. If YOUR prison system works fine the way it is, great. Mine does not.

A person like Timothy Mcvey who reduced half of a downtown building to rubble killing hundreds, deserves to die in absence of exile. This person further burdens taxpayers with life imprisonment. We pay for this person&#39;s room, food, AND recreation....for the rest of his life. That is not much of a deterrent.

One way to look at it is that the families of the dead pay for the food this person&#39;s eats. So "administrative" issues should be taken into account.

You take a life; your life is forfeit.

[Is_this_name_taken_already]

After reading the precideing post I have come to the following conclusion

No one has talked about why these people who are up for a death sentece A.K.A. death row are there: most of them have done things so horible that I doubt I could sleep well for a few nights just knowing.

The death penalty and life in prison is just a short term solution in a would of long term conciquences(sp)

situation one, the death penalty: so we decide to kill all the rapists, cerial killers, music stealers, etc., then all of a sudden theres that guy who kills someone in the defence of his wife and then gets death for the murder(it could happen look a ConAir) the media has a hayday and then either the guy&#39;s sentence is carried out and everyone get all pissed at the government or they decide to change the ruling and the whole system get unraveled

situation two, life in jail: this option is much more costly than simple the simple death penalty because eventually you end up with a bunch of old guys in federal or state prison. These old people develope health problems like dibetes(sp)(the insullin thing) and other stuff causing the state/government to spend a lot of money just to keep these people alive. A similar thing happened in a small town by where I live where an elderly man was jailed for some reason but was released because the city couldn&#39;t afford the several hundred &#036; of medications he was on.

Next, that average person lives to be what like 70 or something? Well lets just say that your average inmate serving a life sentence is in there at age 30(just some random number I chose) that means that government/state money will be paying for this person&#39;s food clothing shelter etc. for 40 years.

If you could understand anything I said in the above you are one step ahead of me but, even if you don&#39;t you can still understand what I said before I went off on a tangent "The death penalty and life in prison is just a short term solution in a would of long term conciquences(sp)" so there is no wrong or right answer either way has its downfalls and whatnot its just a matter of how the public feals and what has the most support most of the time


Sorry about the long post with bad grammer and spelling :ooops:

[Evil Gemini]

We could drop all the lifers in the middle of the sea and let the sharks eat them&#33;

Problem solved.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Evil Gemini@23 December 2003 - 07:47
We could drop all the lifers in the middle of the sea and let the sharks eat them&#33;

Problem solved.
That&#39;s the Death Penalty in the Evil Gemini fashion&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

[Mavol]

You could also drop &#39;em on an islet in the middle of the sea. You&#39;d have to forbid air and sea traffic round the islet because someone could pick &#39;em up.
Well our beaches might suffer cause there would be so many bottles with messages in it. We can drop loads of drugs on the islet so they are all stoned and dont bother us anymore. :smoke:

[J'Pol]

I fully appreciate why people feel that "an eye for an eye" is a legitimate way to decide things. It seems like natural justice.

However I remain of the opinion that the deliberate taking of life is wrong. As such I do not wish society to do it in my name. I am fortunate to live in a country where this is not the case.

[Billy_Dean]

Well I believe what God tells me in the bible, an eye for an eye, if it&#39;s good enough for him, it&#39;s good enough for me.


:)

[Busyman]

You gotta read the rest of the passage Billy.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.

Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so?

Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

[soulwax]

im against the death penalty not as a human rights thing just cause i see life in prison as a worse punishment
to be honest id rather die than spend the rest of my life the countrys worse criminals rapists murders etc
those fucks on death penalty have the easy way out they deserve a lot worse
:D

[Busyman]

Well.......then you pay for it........alone. <_<

[Chame1eon]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+18 December 2003 - 17:18--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 18 December 2003 - 17:18)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@19 December 2003 - 00:15
Apologies for not being perspicuous.
Sorry, I&#39;m not entirely sure what you mean.

Could you clarify for an old man, [/b][/quote]
:lol:

[Yogi]

Deathpenalty means you lower yourself to the standards of the accused and worse.

Yogi

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Busyman@29 December 2003 - 00:55
Well.......then you pay for it........alone. <_<
Life imprisonment that is.

[Chame1eon]

Originally posted by Alex H@22 December 2003 - 00:58
Thank you chalice :lol:

Seriously, if you are legally dead for even a few minutes that means you are "legally" dead. (Oh great I walked into that one)

So if you&#39;re dead, technically you get you&#39;re debt wiped, release from jail, etc.

I&#39;d be interested to hear opinions from j2k4, J&#39;Pol and hobbes especially. Judging from the previous responses they would be the only ones around here with opinions worth listening to.
:o
That just prooves how imperfect laws are and why the death penalty should not be allowed.
I can&#39;t begin to understand people who kill little girls. I think that is horrible, but can we really judge most poeple by a set of imperfect rules?

[Alex H]

"You have killed a human being. Life is sacred. To prove how sacred life is, we are now going to kill you."

Still not sure I understand that point of view.

[Busyman]

It&#39;s simple really.
You are trying to say "If the government kills you for killing a little girl in cold blood, that the government is just as bad".

You are thinking about it to far.

The government, because your crime is so heinous, doesn&#39;t want deal with you anymore.
It could also be looked at as preemptive self-defense for society as a whole.

Should you be put back on the street. No you are a danger.
Locked in jail. No you still are a danger (not as much).

One could argue if I had a person with a gun to their head and you shot and killed me that you had no right to take my life.

[Neo 721]

Judging by the barbaric nature of the US justice system there isnt anyway in our lifetime that this issue will be debated to any effect.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Neo 721@31 December 2003 - 22:07
Judging by the barbaric nature of the US justice system there isnt anyway in our lifetime that this issue will be debated to any effect.
It already is debated.
What "barbaric nature" are you referring?
In comparison to what, Iran?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman@30 December 2003 - 06:07

One could argue if I had a person with a gun to their head and you shot and killed me that you had no right to take my life.
The analogy is flawed.

You are a clear and present danger to the person who you are holding.

If you are in a maximum security prison, then you do not present the same danger.

In your example Society (via the Police Officer) is defending your intended victim from you. That is not the same as revenge killing, which is basically what the death penalty is.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+1 January 2004 - 00:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 1 January 2004 - 00:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@30 December 2003 - 06:07

One could argue if I had a person with a gun to their head and you shot and killed me that you had no right to take my life.
The analogy is flawed.

You are a clear and present danger to the person who you are holding.

If you are in a maximum security prison, then you do not present the same danger.

In your example Society (via the Police Officer) is defending your intended victim from you. That is not the same as revenge killing, which is basically what the death penalty is. [/b][/quote]
In prison you are still a danger. You are not as MUCH of a danger but a danger nonetheless. Prisoners kill other inmates, guards, escape to kill, etc.


In my analogy it is still murder.

[J'Pol]

It is still badly flawed, as you well know.

The two situations are not even broadly similar.

[clocker]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@31 December 2003 - 16:39
That is not the same as revenge killing, which is basically what the death penalty is.
Revenge?
It is a penalty, different from imprisonment only in it&#39;s permanance.
Were it revenge, I think the public aspect would be brought back, much like the public executions that so entertained Victorian England.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+1 January 2004 - 04:29--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 1 January 2004 - 04:29)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@31 December 2003 - 16:39
That is not the same as revenge killing, which is basically what the death penalty is.
Revenge?
It is a penalty, different from imprisonment only in it&#39;s permanance.
Were it revenge, I think the public aspect would be brought back, much like the public executions that so entertained Victorian England.[/b][/quote]
If you have a point I would appreciate it if you could make it, it really isn&#39;t that difficult if you put your mind to it.

[Billy_Dean]

I think Clocker made a good point there. You say it&#39;s revenge, he says it&#39;s a penalty. It&#39;s arguable to say that life in prison is worse than death, people have stated that view in this thread, is it not then merciful to put them to death to save them from a life in prison?

There is no doubt in my mind that people who commit premeditated murder deserve to be killed. I&#39;ve said before that I would be happy to see corporal punishment used if it could be established beyond any doubt that the person was guilty. How do you establish that tho?

I lived in Saudia Arabia for a time in the late 70&#39;s. In the evenings we would walk through the souk, along tiny dark alleyways, into places, where, were you in Morocco or similar, you would not be safe. But we were, there was almost no crime. It&#39;s no coincidence that they had (have) public executions, and hands off for theft. I left a brand new Olympus OM2 camera under the table of a juice bar, went back an hour later and it was still there; where else would that happen?

Maybe a return to the sport of public executions is not such a bad idea Clocker.




:)

[junkyardking]

I&#39;m agaist the death penalty for two reasons,
The killing of an other is simply revenge for the crime commited which civil socitey should not tollerate.

Because you can execute innocent people, you cant reverse the penalty if the person is latter found innocent. ;)

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by junkyardking@1 January 2004 - 15:59
I&#39;m agaist the death penalty for two reasons,
The killing of an other is simply revenge for the crime commited which civil socitey should not tollerate.

It&#39;s not revenge, any more than imprisonment is ... it&#39;s punishment.


:)

[the.gringo]

Originally posted by junkyardking@1 January 2004 - 06:59
I&#39;m agaist the death penalty for two reasons,
The killing of an other is simply revenge for the crime commited which civil socitey should not tollerate.

Because you can execute innocent people, you cant reverse the penalty if the person is latter found innocent. ;)
Execution carried out by the state does not warrant revenge it is JUSTICE.

If one was to kill with the intent of getting VENGEANCE this would be simply VIGILANTE JUSTICE.

Yes, innocent people have been executed but the reality is that with modern forensic investigation techniques such as DNA tests etc. we are able to in MOST cases the guilty ones are those who recieve the lethal injection or firing squad etc.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@1 January 2004 - 06:30
I think Clocker made a good point there.&nbsp; You say it&#39;s revenge, he says it&#39;s a penalty.&nbsp; It&#39;s arguable to say that life in prison is worse than death, people have stated that view in this thread, is it not then merciful to put them to death to save them from a life in prison?

There is no doubt in my mind that people who commit premeditated murder deserve to be killed. I&#39;ve said before that I would be happy to see corporal punishment used if it could be established beyond any doubt that the person was guilty.&nbsp; How do you establish that tho?

I lived in Saudia Arabia for a time in the late 70&#39;s.&nbsp; In the evenings we would walk through the souk, along tiny dark alleyways, into places, where, were you in Morocco or similar, you would not be safe.&nbsp; But we were, there was almost no crime.&nbsp; It&#39;s no coincidence that they had (have) public executions, and hands off for theft.&nbsp; I left a brand new Olympus OM2 camera under the table of a juice bar, went back an hour later and it was still there; where else would that happen?

Maybe a return to the sport of public executions is not such a bad idea Clocker.




:)
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[junkyardking]

Originally posted by the.gringo+1 January 2004 - 11:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (the.gringo @ 1 January 2004 - 11:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-junkyardking@1 January 2004 - 06:59
I&#39;m agaist the death penalty for two reasons,
The killing of an other is simply revenge for the crime commited which civil socitey should not tollerate.

Because you can execute innocent people, you cant reverse the penalty if the person is latter found innocent. ;)
Execution carried out by the state does not warrant revenge it is JUSTICE.

If one was to kill with the intent of getting VENGEANCE this would be simply VIGILANTE JUSTICE.

Yes, innocent people have been executed but the reality is that with modern forensic investigation techniques such as DNA tests etc. we are able to in MOST cases the guilty ones are those who recieve the lethal injection or firing squad etc. [/b][/quote]
Call it what you want, justice or an eye or an eye it&#39;s still revenge.

Modern forensics are just an other piece of evidence with the flaws that come along with it, innocent people will and have been executed which is not tolerable.

Whats wrong with sentancing people to life long hard labour :huh:

[fugley]

Here&#39;s my quick thought on this&#33;

Have the death penalty by all means - but it should only be used when there is 100% certainty of guilt. Problem is, can this 100% certainty ever really be achieved? In the vast majority of cases I suspect not&#33;

Examples

Witnessess get it wrong&#33;

Unfortunately finger prints are not date stamped&#33;

Most video evidence is floored (often fuzzy and inconclusive)

DNA evidence (contamination possibilities in labs and the one in a million shot where more than one person have near identical DNA - apparently this has occurred&#33;.

Also how good&#39;s your defence lawyer? Suspect it could be a bit of a lottery&#33; Or worse still down to how much cash you have&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

Wanna be represented by fugley or JPOL? (stick with me kid and yer a dead duck&#33;)

:blink:

[clocker]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@31 December 2003 - 22:03

If you have a point I would appreciate it if you could make it, it really isn&#39;t that difficult if you put your mind to it.
Is becoming deliberately dense one of your New Years resolutions, JP?
The death sentence is no more "revenge" than imprisonment is.

All state sanctioned penalties could be viewed as "revenge" if one were so inclined.

Ha&#33;
First post of the new year in World News.
What do I win?

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by clocker@1 January 2004 - 23:19
Ha&#33;
First post of the new year in World News.
What do I win?
Sorry mate, the prize goes to Neo 721.

http://www.uploadit.org/BillyDean/first.jpg


:)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+1 January 2004 - 06:03--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 1 January 2004 - 06:03)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by clocker@1 January 2004 - 04:29
<!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@31 December 2003 - 16:39
That is not the same as revenge killing, which is basically what the death penalty is.
Revenge?
It is a penalty, different from imprisonment only in it&#39;s permanance.
Were it revenge, I think the public aspect would be brought back, much like the public executions that so entertained Victorian England.
[/b][/quote]
No, I am not being deliberately dense, or even obtuse.

It is obviously a penalty, I never said that it wasn&#39;t. However the more important aspect is that it is society&#39;s revenge on the criminal. There are other ways of imposing a penalty, life imprisonment for one. That is a punitive measure which does not reduce society to the level of taking lives.

The "public aspect" has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is an act of revenge. Whether you would suggest it or not. It may succeed in making the act even more barbaric than it already is. However it makes it no more or less an act of revenge.

[ilw]

I can&#39;t really find the words to say this properly (too much of the apple last night i think), but punishment is not really the goal, its whats used to achieve a goal and in the case of the death penalty i think a large part of why people want it is revenge. I&#39;ve said this in the last death penalty thread, but anyway if you look at a justice & punishment system I think there are 4 aims
1) Deterrent to others in the society
2) Remove the threat from society
3) Rehabilitate the offender
4) Retribution for those who suffered as a result of the crimes

Punishment usually covers 1,3,4, in the case of the death penalty it covers 1 and 4, and imo wanting the death penalty comes down to either thinking its a good deterrent (which i don&#39;t really agree with) or they are giving into the basic urge for revenge. In a perfect world I would like to think that 4 in the list wouldn&#39;t come into it, because although we all feel the need for revenge when a crime is committed against us, its not really going to help (psychologically perhaps but I&#39;m sure theres another way) and having revenge institutionalised, to the stage where the state will even kill the people who have committed crimes against you, seems basically barbaric to me.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by ilw@1 January 2004 - 15:40
I can&#39;t really find the words to say this properly (too much of the apple last night i think), but punishment is not really the goal, its whats used to achieve a goal and in the case of the death penalty i think a large part of why people want it is revenge. I&#39;ve said this in the last death penalty thread, but anyway if you look at a justice & punishment system I think there are 4 aims
1) Deterrent to others in the society
2) Remove the threat from society
3) Rehabilitate the offender
4) Retribution for those who suffered as a result of the crimes

Punishment usually covers 1,3,4, in the case of the death penalty it covers 1 and 4, and imo wanting the death penalty comes down to either thinking its a good deterrent (which i don&#39;t really agree with) or they are giving into the basic urge for revenge. In a perfect world I would like to think that 4 in the list wouldn&#39;t come into it, because although we all feel the need for revenge when a crime is committed against us, its not really going to help (psychologically perhaps but I&#39;m sure theres another way) and having revenge institutionalised, to the stage where the state will even kill the people who have committed crimes against you, seems basically barbaric to me.
For a person suffering from an overdose of the apple you have done a good job.

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by ilw@1 January 2004 - 23:40
..... imo wanting the death penalty comes down to either thinking its a good deterrent (which i don&#39;t really agree with) or they are giving into the basic urge for revenge.
I can&#39;t agree with you there. If having no death penalty doesn&#39;t deter people from killing, it stands to reason that having it would, if only in a few cases. People must not want to be executed, I don&#39;t see a queue of prisoners asking to be executed instead of spending the rest of their lives in prison. And every person sentenced to death appeals. Public executions are the way to go if you are going to do it, let the public who want it to happen, watch it happen, that would be a deterent.


:)

[clocker]

Originally posted by ilw@1 January 2004 - 07:40
I think there are 4 aims
1) Deterrent to others in the society
2) Remove the threat from society
3) Rehabilitate the offender
4) Retribution for those who suffered as a result of the crimes

Punishment usually covers 1,3,4, in the case of the death penalty it covers 1 and 4
Doesn&#39;t the death penalty effectively address #2 also?

[Evil Gemini]

OK think of it this way.

What if some one you loved got brutally murdered then the cops caught the guy and they find out he has killed heaps of other people.

Would you rather see him get gassed while you watched ? or get life in prison and he is still walking around breathing air and eating food while all the people he has killed are nothing more than bones.

I said before it would be worse to be in jail all your life but then i thought about it.

Life in prison would get easier on them because they will adopt to it and then thats their lives.

[Biggles]

I am unconvinced that the death penalty serves any purpose other than it satisfies some primeval urge for collective retribution. Whether to cede to such urges is good for society is a moot point - on the whole, though, I think not.

I believe someone remarked that crime in Saudi Arabia is low - yet they still execute people on weekly basis. I suspect that two other factors contribute to low crime more than any anything else

1) The liklihood of being caught. (The religious police in Saudi are most effective)

2) The amount of consensus amongst the population that codes they live by are just and fair. (There are many devout Muslims in Saudi who accept Sharia law as just and fair)

In communist Yugoslavia in the 70s the Croatian coast was a popular holiday resort. I had a friend who left a camera on a beach there by mistake. On returning the next day the camera was still there but someone had thoughtfully placed it on a towel to keep the sand off it. Today the former Eastern bloc countries are the home to the new Mafia (perhaps this is what Donald Rumsfeld was referring to as the New Europe) where no crime is too awful to contemplate as long as it turns a handsome profit. The chances of the camera still being on the same beach today are slim indeed. What has changed? - not the people nor so much the penalties but, I would suggest, the two principles above.

Crime, its causes and the most effective solutions are political footballs and "tough measures" are cheap political fixes that sound like somebody is doing something (and scratches that primeval itch). It is no substitute, however, for an effective police force that has the backing of a cohesive society that aspires to common goals. (It is just that the latter doesn&#39;t fit easily onto a political tract)

:01:

Still not sure what this smillie is for, but I do like it.

[ilw]

Originally posted by clocker+1 January 2004 - 13:51--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 1 January 2004 - 13:51)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-ilw@1 January 2004 - 07:40
I think there are 4 aims
1) Deterrent to others in the society
2) Remove the threat from society
3) Rehabilitate the offender
4) Retribution for those who suffered as a result of the crimes

Punishment usually covers 1,3,4, in the case of the death penalty it covers 1 and 4
Doesn&#39;t the death penalty effectively address #2 also? [/b][/quote]
Very true, I blame the apples (or wheat in my case). I suppose imprisonment is the usual punishment and so it covers 2 as well.




OK think of it this way.

What if some one you loved got brutally murdered then the cops caught the guy and they find out he has killed heaps of other people.

Would you rather see him get gassed while you watched ? or get life in prison and he is still walking around breathing air and eating food while all the people he has killed are nothing more than bones.

In other words theres an animal instinct in you to get revenge, relying on your base desires is imo not a good way to think intelligently about a subject. Obviously everyone feels the anger and hatred, but it doesn&#39;t mean you have to listen to it.
Would you yourself kill this person, i.e. release the gas watch him pathetically try to hold his breath, struggling to stay alive, but eventually failing and dying?

Yes i agree it is an extra deterrent, in that way the death penalty may save a couple of lives, however, it may also wrongly kill a couple of innocents.

I just think its not much of a deterrent,

[j2k4]

Two quick thoughts, here:

The prospect of life imprisonment might be a bit more palatable to the pro-death-penalty contingent if it weren&#39;t generally interpreted to be a life of relative ease, where the only real restriction is on freedom of movement; society demands a sufficiently punitive solution, and instead sees those convicted of heinous crimes living it up on the inside (relatively speaking, of course).

To those who would argue against the deterrent effect of the death penalty:

I&#39;ve mentioned this before, but it makes a point, so here it is-

How would one go about determining how many people do NOT commit murder because they themselves would be put to death by the State if caught?

Oh, and one other point:

Those who are against the death penalty often use the quote, "&#39;Revenge is Mine&#39;, sayeth the Lord"....

Oddly enough, they remain of secular mien on all other life/death issues, such as abortion or euthanasia. :huh:

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by ilw@2 January 2004 - 01:10
I just think its not much of a deterrent,
What does not much of a deterrent mean? What if it saved one life? Ten, a hundred? When does it become worthwhile?

:)

[J'Pol]

It may be "common sense" to believe that it is a deterrent. However I am not aware of any meaningful study which supports this. One has to consider the types of crime involved and the circumstances in which they are committed.

I think the scenario that someone sits down, plans a murder, considers the ramifications of their actions and then decides whether to do it or not is probably a rare one.

Even if it were to be a deterrent, does that justify society deliberately and methodically taking lives as an act of punishment / revenge. I genuinely think that every time we do this it lowers our status and right to call ourselves civilized.

[clocker]

I think that the question of "deterrence" is a red herring in this debate.
I don&#39;t believe that fear of the death penalty will stop anybody from commiting the crime.
It seems that the basic question is does society have the right to say "Your crime was so abhorrent and heinous that not only do we want you separated from us, we want you gone, period".
IMO, yes.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker@1 January 2004 - 17:29
I think that the question of "deterrence" is a red herring in this debate.
I don&#39;t believe that fear of the death penalty will stop anybody from commiting the crime.
It seems that the basic question is does society have the right to say "Your crime was so abhorrent and heinous that not only do we want you separated from us, we want you gone, period".
IMO, yes.
To such an extent that you would risk doing it to the innocent.

[Billy_Dean]

What about public floggings then JP? It could be big on Sky&#33;


:)

[clocker]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@1 January 2004 - 09:36

To such an extent that you would risk doing it to the innocent.
You are mixing two separate issues, JP.
The first being " Does society have the right/obligation to impose the death penalty?" and the second "If yes, then under what circumstances?"

I am arguing the first question.
The second is not immediately relevant.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+1 January 2004 - 18:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 1 January 2004 - 18:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@1 January 2004 - 09:36

To such an extent that you would risk doing it to the innocent.
You are mixing two separate issues, JP.
The first being " Does society have the right/obligation to impose the death penalty?" and the second "If yes, then under what circumstances?"

I am arguing the first question.
The second is not immediately relevant. [/b][/quote]
Please allow me to re-word then.

To such an extent that you would do it to the innocent ?

If you have decided yes to the first part, which I totally disagree with, then please elaborate on the conditions which would allow use of the death penalty.

[oldmancan]

I support the death penalty in principle. However, I&#39;m not aware of any historical application that I could endorse.

I don&#39;t support the concept of revenge. I believe in justice. Rarely, imo, do the two go together.

I&#39;m still thinking of the social contract, and the good of the society balanced against the good of the individual. What options are available to the society to protect itself from a bad individual? The most extreme is to exterminate the bad individual.

I suggest that in some cases the extermination of an individual, by a society, is warranted. Can extermination of an individual be civilized? I suggest that the manner of killing and the reason for killing the individual are more relevant than the actual act. The manner of killing should be "painless" so as not to torture.

I don&#39;t want to judge who should live or die. Nor do I want to assign punishments to crimes. I do believe society has the right to protect itself, indeed it has an obligation to do so.

I agree with J&#39;Pol. "Even if it were to be a deterrent, does that justify society deliberately and methodically taking lives as an act of punishment / revenge. I genuinely think that every time we do this it lowers our status and right to call ourselves civilized." ...taking lives as an act of punishment / revenge...being a key condition.

What if change that to "Even if it were to be a deterrent, does that justify society deliberately and methodically taking lives as an act of protecting itself? I genuinely think that every time we do this it lowers our status and right to call ourselves civilized.

gotta go

cheers omc

[J'Pol]

OMC

I take your points on board. I fully agree that the vast majority of society can reasonably expect to be defended from the criminals which it contains.

However I remain of the opinion that society is perfectly capable of defending itself from criminals, without having to take their lives.

Indeed, are the innocent not entitled to be protected from society itself. However much we try to prevent it that society may end up taking their life thro&#39; errors in the Court system, or errors in the evidence (either deliberate or accidental), or corruption from the Police or Judicial system, or inept defence, or a myriad of other things

There are so many ways that a person can be found guilty of an offence which they did not commit. People must be protected from the risk of losing their life, thro&#39; mistakes which can all to easily occur.

[clocker]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@1 January 2004 - 10:43


To such an extent that you would do it to the innocent ?

If you have decided yes to the first part, which I totally disagree with, then please elaborate on the conditions which would allow use of the death penalty.
This whole argument regarding the "killing of the innocent" is completely specious.
Of course I don&#39;t endorse this and have never intimated that I did.
Why would you think that of me?

I have never said that the death penalty should be lightly or cavalierly imposed, either.
What I do say is yes, society has the right and the duty to hold the death penalty as an option.
If concern for the innocent is the overweening problem here, then what about cases where there is no doubt whatsoever?
John Wayne Gacy comes immediately to mind.

[J'Pol]

I think we just fundamentally disagree.

I simply believe that for a society to deliberately take the life of one of it&#39;s members demeans that society. It is doing something that is fundamentally wrong, on behalf of it&#39;s citizens.

The fact that the death sentence is available, makes the society which has it less civilized.

Everything else put forward is just other reasons why having it is wrong. I do not put them forward as one argument. They are entirely separate.

In essence :

1. It is morally wrong, so it should not be done.

2. There is an element of revenge in addition to the punitive element. That is at best unsavoury.

3. Society is perfectly capable of defending itself without it.

4. It is of questionable deterrent value.

5. Indeed it may alienate others (family etc) from the society it seeks to protect, causing further dangers.

6. There are too many ways it can be imposed in error, both deliberate and accidental.

These are all separate arguments, each leading to the conclusion that we should not have it.

[clocker]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@1 January 2004 - 11:45
I think we just fundamentally disagree.


Clearly.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@1 January 2004 - 19:45
I think we just fundamentally disagree.

I simply believe that for a society to deliberately take the life of one of it&#39;s members demeans that society. It is doing something that is fundamentally wrong, on behalf of it&#39;s citizens.

The fact that the death sentence is available, makes the society which has it less civilized.

Everything else put forward is just other reasons why having it is wrong. I do not put them forward as one argument. They are entirely separate.

In essence :

1. It is morally wrong, so it should not be done.

2. There is an element of revenge in addition to the punitive element. That is at best unsavoury.

3. Society is perfectly capable of defending itself without it.

4. It is of questionable deterrent value.

5. Indeed it may alienate others (family etc) from the society it seeks to protect, causing further dangers.

6. There are too many ways it can be imposed in error, both deliberate and accidental.

These are all separate arguments, each leading to the conclusion that we should not have it.
1. What morals are you referring? Yours?

2. Uh huh...there&#39;s an element of revenge in life-imprisonment. There can be an element of revenge in ANY sentence. Example: The townspeople may be so pissed off the jury may give the maximum sentence to a wife-batterer versus the minimum. (There have been some surprises)

3. ...but it does help because it IS a deterrent and a deterrent IS a defense.

4. Questionable deterrent value? Then that means is has some value. It actually is common sense that it is a deterrent.

There are many that think of doing crimes but take a step back when thinking about life imprisonment...
but there are also those who think that if they get caught they can do the time.
There are those who for fear of the death penalty take a step back. I am one of them. There was a "situation" of an associate of mine getting killed and me being grazed by a bullet while getting away. I was between a rock and a hard place because my life was in danger, police didn&#39;t put the shooter on trial, and I had crazy thoughts of killing him first. Get the death penalty for killing him or get death from his bullet. Well I backed off and months later the shooter was busted for another charge and was killed in prison (much later). Lucky me.
You see sometimes prison time is not a good detterent because the train of thought is "AT LEAST I&#39;M ALIVE"...as well as getting clothing, shelter, and food.

5. How does it alienate others? Please expound.

6. I agree. I just think there should be stricter rules governing imposing the death sentence.

[vidcc]

i believe that in some extreme circumstances the death penalty is appropriate....however it is not to be confused with anything other than a punishment. The death penalty is not a deterent or the capitol crimes would not still be being comitted in states that still have it.
i&#39;m not sure if it still applies today but a few years ago i saw a documentary about the death sentence in the USA and one interesting fact was that it cost more to put a man/woman to death than a life sentence because of the appeal system that was in place and the length of time from conviction to the sentence being carried out. That said i would rather there was a proper appeal system in place than try to bring the time down as it has on occasion stopped an injustice taking place (innocent people can be wrongly convicted)

[J'Pol]

1. Obviously

2. I believe that the element of revenge in taking a life is repugnant. I do not think it is the same as that involved in imprisoning the person. The former has an element of blood lust about it.

3. Your proof that it is a deterrent seems to be putting the word is in upper case. Have you something more definitive. One cannot say it serves as a deterrent simply because it sounds right.

4. It is questionable whether it has any deterrent value, not how high that deterrent value may be. However the other point is equally valid. If it has a minimal deterrent value can we use this to justify taking a life.

5. If society takes the life of a person, then their family members, close friends etc may decide (subconsciously or otherwise) that they are no longer part of that society. This itself may lead to criminal conduct. Bearing in mind that I said may in my original point.

6. Again, like Clocker, I think we just fundamentally disagree. I think that killing people in these circumstances is wrong, even if we always get the guilt / innocence absolutely 100% correct. This is simply another reason for not having the death penalty.

[vidcc]

i am not in favour of the death sentence except for extreme cases..some people are so evil they do not deserve to live.

this is not directed anyone, however it will probably be more to think about for total opponents.it is an example to which i would like you to try to imagine

i want you to imagine your child, your sweet innocent 5 year old child is taken from you. perhaps raped and tortured..try to imagine the most evil mind perpetrating this act. the child is beaten,sodomised and urinated on. imagine her cries for her daddy, imagine her fear and imagine what she is thinking because you are not there to save her. her ordeal is ended by her death.

if that was your child wouldn&#39;t you gladly carry out the death sentence yourself?

ok it&#39;s a hyperthetical question and one couldn&#39;t really answer it with 100% accuracy unless it happened...but it&#39;s an example of one of the reasons i would agree that death is the only punishment.

[J'Pol]

I have a 5 year old daughter. I have read your post.

Me desiring to kill someone who behaved in such a way, or even killing them, is not the same as having the death penalty available and using it on such a person.

I fully and without reservation believe that they should be locked away from society for life. Life meaning life - no parole, no licence.

It is wrong to take lives, the death penalty is wrong.

[hobbes]

JPol,

I would kill in self defense and we kill routinely in war, is that not wrong, if not necessary?


I don&#39;t like the death penalty because of potential abuse. When horrible things happen, people demand results. I would hate to see an innocent scape goat (probably black or Islamic) killed to appease the masses.

JPol and I have personally witnessed hysteria and lynch mob mentality. Killing people should not be an option, because once the deed is done, it cannot be undone.

Many people remember that freak Richard Speck who seemed to enjoy his prison life as a pampered sodomized cross-dressing drug addict.

I think prison should be a terrible place, not from cruel beatings, just from keeping them locked in small cages 24/7 with no visitors.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@2 January 2004 - 00:05
1. Obviously

2. I believe that the element of revenge in taking a life is repugnant. I do not think it is the same as that involved in imprisoning the person. The former has an element of blood lust about it.

3. Your proof that it is a deterrent seems to be putting the word is in upper case. Have you something more definitive. One cannot say it serves as a deterrent simply because it sounds right.

4. It is questionable whether it has any deterrent value, not how high that deterrent value may be. However the other point is equally valid. If it has a minimal deterrent value can we use this to justify taking a life.

5. If society takes the life of a person, then their family members, close friends etc may decide (subconsciously or otherwise) that they are no longer part of that society. This itself may lead to criminal conduct. Bearing in mind that I said may in my original point.

6. Again, like Clocker, I think we just fundamentally disagree. I think that killing people in these circumstances is wrong, even if we always get the guilt / innocence absolutely 100% correct. This is simply another reason for not having the death penalty.
1. I was wondering if it was religiously based.

3. I gave proof; you must read on. (try looking at 4)
The reason I said it is common sense is because people do not just stop themselves from commiting crimes just on there own morals. Some don&#39;t commit crimes because of the punishment involved. That is painfully logical.
vidcc made a very weird comment that if the death penalty was a deterrent, capitol crimes wouldn&#39;t be committed. Ridiculous. There is ALWAYS going to capitol crime no matter what punishment. To say no one thinks of the consequences and therefore decides not to commit a capitol crime is total crap.

5. Well that point is rather moot. There are a number reasons that may happen including just jailing the individual. Let&#39;s say Joe Shmoe is tried and imprisoned for life, his "close friends" may turn to criminal conduct in response.
Basically it sounds like the family is pissed the government killed there son, daughter, etc.

6. I get the "we fundamentaly disagree" part but you said "this is simply another reason for not having the death penalty" but you gave no other reason besides "it is wrong" and you&#39;ve basically said that already.

I think it is easy for you to say not to hand down a death sentence when I does not affect you. When something tragic like capitol murder hits your family and the murderer gets:

three meals a day
shower
shave
clothing
heat
air conditioning
shelter
basketball
weightlifting
library
to bring countless lawsuits

And YOUR family helps pay for it all your tune will quickly change.

btw he still gets to murder others in prison and for his further crimes he gets.....

prison :blink:

Awww man but he&#39;s already there <_<

[J'Pol]

Taking the life of an aggressor, who is a danger to your life, or that of your family, or who is part of a force which is invading your country is not analogous.

The death penalty deals with someone who has been arrested, who is within the control of the state and who should present no danger.

I think it was Busyman who mentioned the gun to the head scenario earlier. I really don&#39;t think it is the same. I would fully support the Police Officer who killed that person, to directly save the life of the victim.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@2 January 2004 - 01:15
Taking the life of an aggressor, who is a danger to your life, or that of your family, or who is part of a force which is invading your country is not analogous.

The death penalty deals with someone who has been arrested, who is within the control of the state and who should present no danger.

I think it was Busyman who mentioned the gun to the head scenario earlier. I really don&#39;t think it is the same. I would fully support the Police Officer who killed that person, to directly save the life of the victim.
Let&#39;s say the gun wasn&#39;t loaded.

Then it was a "perceived" threat.

The officer didn&#39;t save a life at all. He took one.

That is why I asked #1 earlier. I was trying to figure whether your morals are Christian based, etc.

[hobbes]

So the morality of killing is relative, not absolute. Intersting in that the 10 Commandments don&#39;t explain any exceptions.

[J'Pol]

What is a capitol crime. Genuinely, I don&#39;t even know what it means. However you miss the point anyway. I was suggesting that crimes of passion were likely to be spur of the moment, as such the ramifications of the actions were unlikely to be a factor.

Your proof is no more than, "it is logical and sensible". That does not constitute proof. Just because you believe that something must be true does not make it so. I say again, how do you know it is a deterrent. Other than "it must be".

My point 6 was that WE MAY MAKE MISTAKES IN FINDING PEOPLE GUILTY, that is an entirely different argument from my position that it is morally wrong. It is a practical thing. How can we use the death penalty, when there are so many ways of getting the verdict wrong, never mind the sentence.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman+2 January 2004 - 01:20--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 2 January 2004 - 01:20)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@2 January 2004 - 01:15
Taking the life of an aggressor, who is a danger to your life, or that of your family, or who is part of a force which is invading your country is not analogous.

The death penalty deals with someone who has been arrested, who is within the control of the state and who should present no danger.

I think it was Busyman who mentioned the gun to the head scenario earlier. I really don&#39;t think it is the same. I would fully support the Police Officer who killed that person, to directly save the life of the victim.
Let&#39;s say the gun wasn&#39;t loaded.

Then it was a "perceived" threat.

The officer didn&#39;t save a life at all. He took one.

That is why I asked #1 earlier. I was trying to figure whether your morals are Christian based, etc. [/b][/quote]
Let&#39;s say the gun was made of chocolate and the moon is made of cheese.

I cannot be bothered with sophistry.

Your scenario had a gun to a head. The person making the decision must believe that it is a danger to the victim.

It changes nothing with regard to the death penalty.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by hobbes@2 January 2004 - 01:23
So the morality of killing is relative, not absolute. Intersting in that the 10 Commandments don&#39;t explain any exceptions.
I believe that everything is relative.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+2 January 2004 - 01:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol &#064; 2 January 2004 - 01:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@2 January 2004 - 01:23
So the morality of killing is relative, not absolute. Intersting in that the 10 Commandments don&#39;t explain any exceptions.
I believe that everything is relative. [/b][/quote]
So when do we decide that "killing" is unjust. Seems to be a rather arbitrary decision.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by hobbes+2 January 2004 - 01:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 2 January 2004 - 01:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@2 January 2004 - 01:32
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@2 January 2004 - 01:23
So the morality of killing is relative, not absolute. Intersting in that the 10 Commandments don&#39;t explain any exceptions.
I believe that everything is relative.
So when do we decide that "killing" is unjust. Seems to be a rather arbitrary decision. [/b][/quote]
Only if you don&#39;t read, or chose to ignore, what has gone before.

I think my position is entirely clear on this.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+2 January 2004 - 01:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol &#064; 2 January 2004 - 01:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by hobbes@2 January 2004 - 01:34

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@2 January 2004 - 01:32
<!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@2 January 2004 - 01:23
So the morality of killing is relative, not absolute. Intersting in that the 10 Commandments don&#39;t explain any exceptions.
I believe that everything is relative.
So when do we decide that "killing" is unjust. Seems to be a rather arbitrary decision.
Only if you don&#39;t read, or chose to ignore, what has gone before.

I think my position is entirely clear on this. [/b][/quote]
As is mine. I fear the abuse of this form of prosecution.

I don&#39;t object based on morality, as we have shown that the everything is relative, but more on abuse and the lynch mob mentality.

[vidcc]

ok lets say that there was absolutely no doubt about guilt....a man walks onto the set of jerry springer and "pops a cap in his ass" thereby rendering the aforementioned host dead (ignore that tv would suddenly become better) the man is arrested with the gun in his hand and he admits it&#39;s a fair cop he did it and has not regrets..does this man deserve the death sentence

how about someone like Adolf Hitler had he not comitted suicide?

yes mistakes are made and for that reason the death setence is flawed to say the least and is a very valid reason to abolish it...but in cases where there is no doubt at all and the case was extreme enough i am all for the national grid providing a solution

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by vidcc@2 January 2004 - 01:46
ok lets say that there was absolutely no doubt about guilt....a man walks onto the set of jerry springer and "pops a cap in his ass" thereby rendering the aforementioned host dead (ignore that tv would suddenly become better) the man is arrested with the gun in his hand and he admits it&#39;s a fair cop he did it and has not regrets..does this man deserve the death sentence

how about someone like Adolf Hitler had he not comitted suicide?

yes mistakes are made and for that reason the death setence is flawed to say the least and is a very valid reason to abolish it...but in cases where there is no doubt at all and the case was extreme enough i am all for the national grid providing a solution
So what offence are you accusing him of.

Seriously, you have to look at the ingredients of the offence, before you even look at whether or not there is a prima facie case. So we need to know what the offence is.

Those ingredients (all of them) then have to be proven before you can find someone guilty of that offence.

Even if you do that, the answer is no. The death penalty is wrong.

[sArA]

I can&#39;t help but consider the death penalty to be the quick easy option out of guilt.

My solution is far simpler, probably cheaper and allows for miscarriages of justice to be reversed as they are not dead (quite).

Simply that each convicted bastard (provided that they have commited some really heinous death deserving crime) should be put into a 6 foot by 6 foot cell, no windows, just one bare bulb, a board and a blanket to sleep on, a bucket to piss and crap in, no toilet, no sink, no tv, no visitors, no books, no newspapers, no medical care (if you get ill tough shit you die&#33;). They would get just bread and water through a slot each day, and swap their full bucket for an emptied one, also through the slot. No human conversation, total isolation.

[sArA]

Oh...by the way....Hello all (horrendously off topic I know) just thought I would pop in as not been around for a while.

[ZeroTolerance]

im against the death penalty because i said so...

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Neo 721@31 December 2003 - 17:07
Judging by the barbaric nature of the US justice system there isnt anyway in our lifetime that this issue will be debated to any effect.
Neo-

Would you compare for us the ways the U.S. justice system is barbaric relative to other civilized/industrial countries?

Apart from the death-penalty?

[vidcc]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+2 January 2004 - 00:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 2 January 2004 - 00:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@2 January 2004 - 01:46
ok lets say that there was absolutely no doubt about guilt....a man walks onto the set of jerry springer and "pops a cap in his ass" thereby rendering the aforementioned host dead (ignore that tv would suddenly become better) the man is arrested with the gun in his hand and he admits it&#39;s a fair cop he did it and has not regrets..does this man deserve the death sentence

how about someone like Adolf Hitler had he not comitted suicide?

yes mistakes are made and for that reason the death setence is flawed to say the least and is a very valid reason to abolish it...but in cases where there is no doubt at all and the case was extreme enough i am all for the national grid providing a solution
So what offence are you accusing him of.

Seriously, you have to look at the ingredients of the offence, before you even look at whether or not there is a prima facie case. So we need to know what the offence is.

Those ingredients (all of them) then have to be proven before you can find someone guilty of that offence.

Even if you do that, the answer is no. The death penalty is wrong. [/b][/quote]
if you mean the man that shot jerry...murder in the 1st

if you mean Hitler..well apart from the extermination of a couple of jews i guess he was just misunderstood.

jp of all the people on this forum you are one of the most level headed, willing to consider the other view. you must realise that i am generalising with examples...just trying to see if someone that is anti death has a breaking point.
i totally agree that one has to look at all the ingredients before passing sentence and i think that at least in the USA where i live it&#39;s not always a constant science. for example a black man is more likely statistically (mind you anything could be proven by statistics) to be sentence to death than a white man comitting the same crime..this is not bringing racism into the debate.
i do understand your view, believe me i wish there was no death penalty but there is. i also wish that there was a better safety net to ensure that mistakes couldn&#39;t happen (yes abolishion would be the only 100% answer) however when i see on the news stories such as Sarh Payne and the Soham girls my current view is execution of the evil scum that comitted those crimes by the most prolonged and painful way possible is the only way.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@2 January 2004 - 01:26
What is a capitol crime. Genuinely, I don&#39;t even know what it means. However you miss the point anyway. I was suggesting that crimes of passion were likely to be spur of the moment, as such the ramifications of the actions were unlikely to be a factor.

Your proof is no more than, "it is logical and sensible". That does not constitute proof. Just because you believe that something must be true does not make it so. I say again, how do you know it is a deterrent. Other than "it must be".

My point 6 was that WE MAY MAKE MISTAKES IN FINDING PEOPLE GUILTY, that is an entirely different argument from my position that it is morally wrong. It is a practical thing. How can we use the death penalty, when there are so many ways of getting the verdict wrong, never mind the sentence.
The "proof" is that I am deterred as are many others. Do you need a special study to prove that which is common sense?
Knowing of the consequences of breaking laws is a deterrent.
Proof:
Run a red light; get a traffic ticket...if ya don&#39;t want a ticket..don&#39;t run the light
Run a red light; die in a car wreck....blahblahblah
One lady rode in a High Occupancy lane and got a ticket. Her response was that she&#39;s been doing it for years and she doesn&#39;t care about this one ticket because she saved the time getting to work. She said she would do it again. She was not deterred.
It happens.
My proof is not just that it is logical and sensible. You must read everything.
I will not discuss this point of proof any longer because it like discussing why I don&#39;t touch a hot stove. <_<

I misunderstood your point 6 later because you added "even if we get the innocence/ guilty verdict always 100% correct. This is simply ANOTHER reason for not having the death penalty."

@hobbes - I think there are folks put to death that are innocent, that is why I think death should be carried out:
If the crime is extremely heinous- ex. our very own DC Sniper case
If the proof is beyond reproach- ex. caught on camera doing the crime

In the DC Sniper case some jurors expressed they had a hard time giving John Muhammed the death penalty but in the end he could not be allowed to live. He had 2 states and Washington DC living in total fear.
As I said before it is easy to be against the penalty as an avid book reader, scholar, etc of law, when it does not affect you.
We are not in Star Trek.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Busyman@2 January 2004 - 06:01

One lady rode in a High Occupancy lane and got a ticket. Her response was that she&#39;s been doing it for years and she doesn&#39;t care about this one ticket because she saved the time getting to work. She said she would do it again. She was not deterred.
It happens.

Maybe if the consequence was that she&#39;d be put to death maybe she would stay her ass out of the HOV lane. :lol: :lol:

(sorry had to add that)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Busyman+2 January 2004 - 05:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 2 January 2004 - 05:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@2 January 2004 - 06:01

One lady rode in a High Occupancy lane and got a ticket. Her response was that she&#39;s been doing it for years and she doesn&#39;t care about this one ticket because she saved the time getting to work. She said she would do it again. She was not deterred.
It happens.

Maybe if the consequence was that she&#39;d be put to death maybe she would stay her ass out of the HOV lane. :lol: :lol:

(sorry had to add that) [/b][/quote]
drastic but true :lol: :lol:

[Billy_Dean]

JP, do you believe Sadam and Osama should be executed if they were to be found guilty in a fair trial?


:)

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@2 January 2004 - 06:34
JP, do you believe Sadam and Osama should be executed if they were to be found guilty in a fair trial?


:)
We should send them both to Glasgow to serve out life imprisonment paid for by JP.

Oh I&#39;m sorry. My name&#39;s not JP :o

[D4rK0Soul]

im against because i think the person should to but in jail or totured :ph34r: . like petofyls or whatever. throw there ass&#39; in jail and see what happens :devil:

[Billy_Dean]

Originally posted by Busyman
@hobbes - I think there are folks put to death that are innocent, that is why I think death should be carried out:
?????????????????????????????????????? :blink:


:)

[bootylicious]

I am 110% against the death penalty. I mean, not because a man or woman commits murder doesn&#39;t mean we have the right to put them to death...that would make us murderers as well. No man have the right to take another&#39;s life no matter the circumstances (man did not make man, god did...so only he have the right) I believe in a fair trial. If a person is found quilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then yes that person should pay and pay dearly but not by the electric chair or lethal injection. They should be locked up behind bars or put in a dark cell somewhere for the rest of their natural life. That will teach them a thing or two even though it won&#39;t matter much in the end since they will never see the light of day.

[ZeroTolerance]

Originally posted by bootylicious@2 January 2004 - 06:44
I am 110% against the death penalty. I mean, not because a man or woman commits murder doesn&#39;t mean we have the right to put them to death...that would make us murderers as well. No man have the right to take another&#39;s life no matter the circumstances (man did not make man, god did...so only he have the right) I believe in a fair trial. If a person is found quilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then yes that person should pay and pay dearly but not by the electric chair or lethal injection. They should be locked up behind bars or put in a dark cell somewhere for the rest of their natural life. That will teach them a thing or two even though it won&#39;t matter much in the end since they will never see the light of day.
she got alot of wisdom in her ;) im totally agree wit you ,only GOD can kill the living :01:

[vidcc]

Originally posted by jerome18@2 January 2004 - 08:01
she got alot of wisdom in her ;) im totally agree wit you ,only GOD can kill the living :01:
so are murderers god ?

[ZeroTolerance]

Originally posted by vidcc+2 January 2004 - 08:09--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 2 January 2004 - 08:09)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-jerome18@2 January 2004 - 08:01
she got alot of wisdom in her ;)&nbsp; im totally agree wit you ,only GOD can kill the living :01:
so are murderers god ? [/b][/quote]
Ask God that question and he&#39;ll answer it for you ;)

[human_pet]

and what if God dictates that we humans should kill those who murdered?

[ZeroTolerance]

Originally posted by human_pet@2 January 2004 - 08:37
and what if God dictates that we humans should kill those who murdered?
then you must be communcating with the devil :lol: :lol:

[ZeroTolerance]

if you watch msn/nbc right now usa central time/canada 12am-3am , its giving imates a chance to voice their options about their crimes B)

[ZeroTolerance]

Originally posted by human_pet@2 January 2004 - 08:37
and what if God dictates that we humans should kill those who murdered?
then who will kill the other person who kills, thats like extermnating the whole world

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@2 January 2004 - 06:34
JP, do you believe Sadam and Osama should be executed if they were to be found guilty in a fair trial?


:)
Absolutely not.

I really think I have made myself perfectly clear. I believe the death penalty to be wrong.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by jerome18+2 January 2004 - 09:01--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jerome18 @ 2 January 2004 - 09:01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-bootylicious@2 January 2004 - 06:44
I am 110% against the death penalty. I mean, not because a man or woman commits murder doesn&#39;t mean we have the right to put them to death...that would make us murderers as well. No man have the right to take another&#39;s life no matter the circumstances (man did not make man, god did...so only he have the right) I believe in a fair trial. If a person is found quilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then yes that person should pay and pay dearly but not by the electric chair or lethal injection. They should be locked up behind bars or put in a dark cell somewhere for the rest of their natural life. That will teach them a thing or two even though it won&#39;t matter much in the end since they will never see the light of day.
she got alot of wisdom in her ;) im totally agree wit you ,only GOD can kill the living :01: [/b][/quote]
So to save your child from a murderer what are you going to use......

HARSH LANGUAGE&#33;&#33;&#33; :lol:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean+2 January 2004 - 07:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Billy_Dean @ 2 January 2004 - 07:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman
@hobbes - I think there are folks put to death that are innocent, that is why I think death should be carried out:
?????????????????????????????????????? :blink:


:) [/b][/quote]
Read the rest of the post Billy. <_<

[vidcc]

Originally posted by jerome18+2 January 2004 - 08:21--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (jerome18 @ 2 January 2004 - 08:21)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by vidcc@2 January 2004 - 08:09
<!--QuoteBegin-jerome18@2 January 2004 - 08:01
she got alot of wisdom in her ;) im totally agree wit you ,only GOD can kill the living :01:
so are murderers god ?
Ask God that question and he&#39;ll answer it for you ;) [/b][/quote]
is he a member of this forum then ? i know there are some that like to think they are him

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+2 January 2004 - 13:30--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 2 January 2004 - 13:30)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by jerome18@2 January 2004 - 08:21

Originally posted by vidcc@2 January 2004 - 08:09
<!--QuoteBegin-jerome18@2 January 2004 - 08:01
she got alot of wisdom in her ;) im totally agree wit you ,only GOD can kill the living :01:
so are murderers god ?
Ask God that question and he&#39;ll answer it for you ;)
is he a member of this forum then ? i know there are some that like to think they are him[/b][/quote]
A few things go through my head while reading this:

What if God is acting through the Justice system, humans being the conduits by which His desires are, ahem...executed?

He does act in mysterious ways, you know.

How would humans request a "rush disposition" on a particularly deserving individual? :huh:



I know, I know.....nevermind.

All this flailing about over the question.

Is it punishment we desire?

Revenge?

Rehabiliation?

Why don&#39;t we separate the wheat from the chaff, here?

There are people posting who probably think even a slap on the wrist is too harsh; also some who bring the Lord into this argument when they would avoid doing so at all costs if we were arguing about abortion or euthanasia.

You can&#39;t have it both ways-how about some consistency from the wishy-washy contingent?

(Not you, J&#39;Pol-you are, as usual, the epitome of consistancy on matters religious :) )

[vidcc]

euthanasia &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; now there is a very good subject to debate (but i bet it&#39;s been done to death on the forum) pun intended

[Biggles]

There are a lot of interesting comments above (and a few I don&#39;t really understand).

I am with J&#39;Pol on this one. Yes there are despicable people who have commited awful crimes. However, I believe their execution brutalises us not them.

A number of hypothetical situations have been posed (some of which lead me to conclude that some board members live in a war zone). I don&#39;t think there is any evidence to suggest the death penalty prevents murders. Did Al Capone and his contempories worry overly or did they just ensure that there were no living witnesses? 1920s Chicago was a pretty rough place by all accounts - possibly still is.

If. as I believe, the death penalty serves no useful purpose as a deterrant the debate comes down purely to how society is best served by its penal code. If society is brutalised by its own codes such as Nazi Germany was, then that very code corrupts society even further. Perhaps this explains the divergence of thinking between Europe and the US on this matter. We have been to a place that is far worse than where the US currently is and subsequently have made a conscious decision never to re-visit that place, no matter how diluted. This is a key factor to the abolition of the death penalty being a pre-requisite for any country wishing to join the EU.

[J'Pol]

Biggles


1920s Chicago was a pretty rough place by all accounts - possibly still is.

I don&#39;t think 20s Chicago is as bad as it was. :blink:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@2 January 2004 - 15:39
Biggles


1920s Chicago was a pretty rough place by all accounts - possibly still is.

I don&#39;t think 20s Chicago is as bad as it was. :blink:
I can vouch for the fact. :lol:

[ZeroTolerance]

Originally posted by j2k4+2 January 2004 - 18:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 2 January 2004 - 18:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by vidcc@2 January 2004 - 13:30

Originally posted by jerome18@2 January 2004 - 08:21

Originally posted by vidcc@2 January 2004 - 08:09
<!--QuoteBegin-jerome18@2 January 2004 - 08:01
she got alot of wisdom in her ;) im totally agree wit you ,only GOD can kill the living :01:
so are murderers god ?
Ask God that question and he&#39;ll answer it for you ;)
is he a member of this forum then ? i know there are some that like to think they are him
A few things go through my head while reading this:

What if God is acting through the Justice system, humans being the conduits by which His desires are, ahem...executed?

He does act in mysterious ways, you know.

How would humans request a "rush disposition" on a particularly deserving individual? :huh:



I know, I know.....nevermind.

All this flailing about over the question.

Is it punishment we desire?

Revenge?

Rehabiliation?

Why don&#39;t we separate the wheat from the chaff, here?

There are people posting who probably think even a slap on the wrist is too harsh; also some who bring the Lord into this argument when they would avoid doing so at all costs if we were arguing about abortion or euthanasia.

You can&#39;t have it both ways-how about some consistency from the wishy-washy contingent?

(Not you, J&#39;Pol-you are, as usual, the epitome of consistancy on matters religious :) ) [/b][/quote]
thats a possibllity but God would of said it in the Bible if another man shall have the right to kill another man and one of the ten commanments God gave Moses on Mount Sinai is thy shall not kill ex:20:1-17 Deut5:6 21..... do this apply to the court justice system?


And some convicts are in their are innocence and its hard to believe but some times they excute innocence people&#33; Now do you agree with the death penality? Because you can be that innocence person who hasnt commited a crime in your whole lifetime but the courts say you killed somebody and have to die but one thing your {innocence}.&#33;

Its been proven that some people in jail are innocence because of DNA testing was not availble back in the day, just image how many more innocence people are in jail?&#33;




btw im not saying all inmates or convicts are innocence or gulity im just saying God would not approve of these drastic measures tooken today to kill somebody by electric chairs, and etc etc...

These are my opinions you can like it or hate it , but really dont care :D

[vidcc]

ok i&#39;m going to say it upfront....i doubt there is a god...i could be wrong but it&#39;s my view. the bible you quote wasn&#39;t written by god (if he exists) it was written by men and men as we all know are open to misinterpretaion.
i admire your beliefs and in no way dissaproove of them but unless you actually have had a chat with god you are quoting the words of men when you quote the bible. now i realise that this will provoke outrage however it is not supposed to.
i wish i had religion but i have seen too many bad things in this world and justification by "well god has a reason" just makes me doubt more.
please read all the post...i said i doubt...i didn&#39;t say there definately isn&#39;t so i don&#39;t need lots of replies telling me there is.

[ZeroTolerance]

Originally posted by vidcc@2 January 2004 - 21:13
ok i&#39;m going to say it upfront....i doubt there is a god...i could be wrong but it&#39;s my view. the bible you quote wasn&#39;t written by god (if he exists) it was written by men and men as we all know are open to misinterpretaion.
i admire your beliefs and in no way dissaproove of them but unless you actually have had a chat with god you are quoting the words of men when you quote the bible. now i realise that this will provoke outrage however it is not supposed to.
i wish i had religion but i have seen too many bad things in this world and justification by "well god has a reason" just makes me doubt more.
please read all the post...i said i doubt...i didn&#39;t say there definately isn&#39;t so i don&#39;t need lots of replies telling me there is.
you know what......thats brave for you to come out in and say that you doubt their is a God, but i respect that becuase you keep it real. My question for you is do you think thier is a Devil and if you say yes then thier definalty has to be a God its just has to be. If you dont believe in A {god} just pray and be commited to your religion and you will be see things change in your life. This may sound stupid but im going to say it anyway, when i was around 16,17 now im 18 , i use to have demons visit me in my dreams and when im half awake because i was doing wrong in my life and all types of stuff like stealing .lying .,fighting and all stuff of things thats when i said man...... i cant have these demons visit me in my dreams and when im half awake so i went to church since then and the demons have left my life and i sleep with my Bible so it wil protect me....this may sound stupid or ludcris but its the truth in my life.

[vidcc]

no it doesn&#39;t sound stupid that you had deamons and i am glad that you found belief.

no i don&#39;t believe in the devil.

[ZeroTolerance]

so what do you believe in or whats your mind state of how this world was made?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by jerome18@2 January 2004 - 23:27
so what do you believe in or whats your mind state of how this world was made?
Getting a wee hair of topic there mate.

Why don&#39;t you start a new thread, after all this is a poll created to discuss the death penalty.

[ZeroTolerance]

good idea ;)

[Biggles]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@2 January 2004 - 19:39
Biggles


1920s Chicago was a pretty rough place by all accounts - possibly still is.

I don&#39;t think 20s Chicago is as bad as it was. :blink:
J&#39;Pol

I believe you have spotted an ambiguity I shall return it to its box immediately.

:ermm:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Biggles+2 January 2004 - 20:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 2 January 2004 - 20:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@2 January 2004 - 19:39
Biggles


1920s Chicago was a pretty rough place by all accounts - possibly still is.

I don&#39;t think 20s Chicago is as bad as it was. :blink:
J&#39;Pol

I believe you have spotted an ambiguity I shall return it to its box immediately.

:ermm: [/b][/quote]
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Bravo and well-done&#33;



Happy New Year to you, Biggles&#33;

[Biggles]

Happy New year to you too J2K4

all the best for 2004

[Mivaro]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@2 January 2004 - 19:39
Biggles


1920s Chicago was a pretty rough place by all accounts - possibly still is.

I don&#39;t think 20s Chicago is as bad as it was. :blink:
According to this (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-city-murders,0,6439177.story?coll=sns-ap-nation-headlines) article it&#39;s not a safe place though.. ;)

[ilw]

I was thinking about this thread yesterday and it occured to me that morally i don&#39;t actually believe in justice. Although i haven&#39;t checked the definition of justice, it implies to me some form of retribution along the lines of an eye for an eye etc. if it were possible to rehabilitate/reform people without punishment then for me that would be ideal. Obviously its totally implausible at the moment, but does anyone agree with the sentiment ie in a better world punishment (and i suppose deterrence by proxy) serve no real purpose.
ie i&#39;m arguing that punishment is simply curretnly the most expedient way of achievign an aim, rather than something you feel ethically should actually happen.

[creamer]

i say, too the fire with you.

some people just dont belong or deserve to be in this world

[Evil Gemini]

Originally posted by creamer@3 January 2004 - 15:01
i say, too the fire with you.

some people just dont belong or deserve to be in this world
i agree 100%

[clocker]

Originally posted by ilw@3 January 2004 - 06:51
I was thinking about this thread yesterday and it occured to me that morally i don&#39;t actually believe in justice. Although i haven&#39;t checked the definition of justice, it implies to me some form of retribution along the lines of an eye for an eye etc. if it were possible to rehabilitate/reform people without punishment then for me that would be ideal. Obviously its totally implausible at the moment, but does anyone agree with the sentiment ie in a better world punishment (and i suppose deterrence by proxy) serve no real purpose.
ie i&#39;m arguing that punishment is simply curretnly the most expedient way of achievign an aim, rather than something you feel ethically should actually happen.
Since you don&#39;t seem willing to expend the minimal effort it takes to "actually look up the definition", I&#39;ll do it for you...Merry Christmas.

Main Entry: jus·tice
Pronunciation: &#39;j&s-t&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English & Old French; Old English justice, from Old French justice, from Latin justitia, from justus
Date: 12th century
1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b : JUDGE c : the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
2 a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : RIGHTEOUSNESS c : the quality of conforming to law
3 : conformity to truth, fact, or reason : CORRECTNESS

Now...what part of that gives you moral pause?


does anyone agree with the sentiment ie in a better world punishment&nbsp; (and i suppose deterrence by proxy) serve no real purpose.&nbsp;
Gee whiz....except for the maintainence of your theoretical "better world" no, I suppose that punishmant serves no purpose whatsoever.

Why is the administration of punishment ( and, by implication, the granting of reward) ethically abhorrent?

On a side note: How do you reconcile your obvious Utopian world view with your sig?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Biggles@2 January 2004 - 20:18

A number of hypothetical situations have been posed (some of which lead me to conclude that some board members live in a war zone). I don&#39;t think there is any evidence to suggest the death penalty prevents murders. Did Al Capone and his contempories worry overly or did they just ensure that there were no living witnesses? 1920s Chicago was a pretty rough place by all accounts - possibly still is.


That was "Al Capone and his contempories" not everyone.

Think about this:

If you, Biggles, killed someone for stepping on your your shoes.
You were caught on camera and a judge told you to stand in the corner with gum on your nose for 5 minutes as punishment, would you be more or less likely to do this crime again?

Some of you have your nose so far into books and statistics that common sense is out the window.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@3 January 2004 - 09:51
I was thinking about this thread yesterday and it occured to me that morally i don&#39;t actually believe in justice. Although i haven&#39;t checked the definition of justice, it implies to me some form of retribution along the lines of an eye for an eye etc. if it were possible to rehabilitate/reform people without punishment then for me that would be ideal. Obviously its totally implausible at the moment, but does anyone agree with the sentiment ie in a better world punishment (and i suppose deterrence by proxy) serve no real purpose.
ie i&#39;m arguing that punishment is simply curretnly the most expedient way of achievign an aim, rather than something you feel ethically should actually happen.
Ian, I think that spliff is tainted. ;)

I suggest you douse it and switch to a different product. B)

:)

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman@3 January 2004 - 20:16
Some of you have your nose so far into books and statistics that common sense is out the window.
That may be the case, however anyone who puts such high stock on "common sense" deserves little attention given to their opinion. To believe that the death penalty is an effective deterrent, simply because you think it is logical and "common sense" is an untenable position.

Someone once said that common sense was just our collection of prejudices and preconceptions. That being the case, one man&#39;s common sense may not equate to another&#39;s.

I think you will find that the people here have a wide range of experiences in life. These discussions are not just based on things we have read. However we do not dismiss things, simply because we have only read them. As Kurt Vonnegut said, if you can read you can think the thoughts of Angels (I paraphrase).

I have dealt with various murderers, in real life and in person. I have dealt with a multiple murderer who killed a husband and wife, in cold blood, over a drug debt. I have dealt with people who based their businesses on punishment beatings and were capable of horrendous acts of violence, the results of which I have seen. Other people here have a great deal of life&#39;s experience and have made choices (for real) which have had far reaching effects on them, their families and others.

I for one do not appreciate condescension from yet another "common sense" merchant. It is the last resort of those who cannot support their position or opinion based on facts.

Your "analogy" posed to Biggles is totally flawed. Change it to, spend the rest of your life in a maximum security prison. Where your every move is controlled. You eat what and when you are told. You excercise when you are told. You see people when it is allowed. You lose any control over your own existence and you are in danger of getting buggered senseless on a regular basis. Then it is more valid than trying to defend your position by comparing it to the patently preposterous.

[vidcc]

the death penalty is not a deterent, it is a punishment pure and simple. it doesn&#39;t stop capitol crime being comitted, but it certainly stops the person that is being executed doing the same thing again.
laws and punishment are supposed to be deterents and to a degree they are...obviously or many more would commit crime..however they are not 100% deterent.
if the objection to the death penalty is purely based on the fact that it doesn&#39;t deter everyone then the same could be said of all laws and penalties.
i do appreciate that most objections are not that simple so we don&#39;t need corrections to this.
the death sentence is the ultimate punishment and isn&#39;t handed out willie nilly...well not here at least..not only the crime is taken into account but all the circumstances that led to it.




i wish i knew the name of the person that said it but one person on death row stated that he was not sorry he comitted his crime, but he was sorry he got caught. he also said he didn&#39;t want to die but admitted he probably deserved to for what he did.

[Biggles]

Thank you J&#39;Pol

I shall attempt this with more than the recommended amount of Glenlivet&#39;s finest - having just returned from a belated New Year party.

Busyman,

The simple fact is that Al Capone and his contemporaries were the "organised gang crime" of 1920s Chigaco. Yes, other murders did occur, but mostly murders outside such gangland killings were crimes of passion. No penalty devised yet by man has deterred the latter.

So I believe the position I argued regarding the benefit of our penal codes to our respective societies stands.

Putting aside understandable emotions in the face of awful crimes, what serves our societies best? You may argue that executions are most effective but this can only be on the basis that it creates greater social cohesion and (to use an awful modern term) societal goal congruence. The argument that it deters murder is unproven as the EU, which has a larger population than the US, and no executions, has a lower murder rate than the US (by some considerable margin).

I cannot speak fot the US as I am not part of that culture and society, but I believe the EU position is right for the EU and I do support it. I think to re-introduce the death penalty after 40+ years would be a backwards step and achieve little and perhaps less than a little.

Looking back over the decades, in the UK in particular, a considerable number of innocent people would have been murdered by the State if we still had the death penalty. (The Guildford four and the Birmingham six to name but 10).

To be guilty of murdering the innocent makes the law no better than the common murderer thus diminishing its credibility and standing in the public eye. As I hold that law only works if most people subscribe to its basic fairness and applicability, then such a situation can only impair the social fabric that we need to cover ourselves. In short, the death penalty does not serve us well.

I appreciate this is a somewhat Utilitarian approach to the subject but I have considerable sympathy for J&#39;Pol&#39;s position too; which I understand has a more spiritual context to it and is none the worse for that.

I do hope this makes sense, as the screen has become has blurred to my eyes as my brain has to the whisky (this has been proof read about ten times to get the typos out).

:unsure:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Biggles@4 January 2004 - 06:26
Busyman,

The simple fact is that Al Capone and his contemporaries were the "organised gang crime" of 1920s Chigaco. Yes, other murders did occur, but mostly murders outside such gangland killings were crimes of passion. No penalty devised yet by man has deterred the latter.


Do you know what a deterrent is?

If I kill someone, get the death penalty, and say that I&#39;d do it again if I had the chance, you are then saying, "See it doesn&#39;t work." :lol: :lol:

You are looking at people that have already done the crime. What a joke.

The real study would be to poll people that have not done the crime.
Ask them if under certain circumstances would they do the crime.
Don&#39;t get me wrong, I some folks would abstain from crime due to their own morals regardless of the consequences of law.

@J&#39;Pol -there are levels of deterrence.

Point taken about life in prison..
but there are those who have been in and out of jail their whole life but losing there life is out of the question. There is a big difference.
Life imprisonment is a deterrent
...but so is the death penalty.

To say it is an ineffective deterrent means it is still a deterrent and there still has an efffect.

edit @Biggles- I agree about crimes of passion- spur of the moment, or "I don&#39;t give a fuck about anything anymore" crimes.

[Biggles]

Busyman

I understand what you are saying. However, I am working from the pespective that the overwhelming majority of people are stakeholders in a stable society and would not even contemplate stealing lost property let alone kill someone.

Perhaps I am too removed from the society you live in. By your logic the EU with "light penalties" should be over-run with crime. On the other hand, the US with harsher penalties should have much less crime. Is this in fact the case?

:clover: This has nothing to do with my argument above, it is for J&#39;Pol and Lamsey - as a neutral I celebrate their happiness.

[Billy_Dean]

To say that the death penalty is no deterent is an obviously flawed view. I have sympathy for JP&#39;s view, but common sense, in some cases is obviously correct.

I myself plotted to murder someone in England many years ago, a paedophile. My good friends on this forum know this story. I intended it to look like manslaughter. Had I got away with it I would have spent a very few years in prison. Had it gone wrong, and I&#39;d been found guilty of murder, the consequences would have been more severe, but manageable. Life imprisonment in England was 12 years, I don&#39;t know the situation now, but I believe you can get out now in less. It is not the rest of your life, except in exceptional circumstances. Now, had there been a risk of my being executed, I would not have taken the chance. I don&#39;t know how many people here have been to prison, I have, in England and Morocco. For some, prison is hard, for most it is easy. When you get in you find your place, your mates, and you suss out your surroundings, the rest is easy.

Now, if the death penalty would have detered me, and I&#39;m only one of 6,000,000 people, common sense will tell you that it must deter others. I&#39;m not putting figures on this, I don&#39;t care if it&#39;s only two of us, every time someone is detered, it saves a life.

This is not a pro death penalty post.


:)

[vidcc]

Originally posted by Biggles@4 January 2004 - 05:26
Thank you J&#39;Pol


Putting aside understandable emotions in the face of awful crimes, what serves our societies best? You may argue that executions are most effective but this can only be on the basis that it creates greater social cohesion and (to use an awful modern term) societal goal congruence. The argument that it deters murder is unproven as the EU, which has a larger population than the US, and no executions, has a lower murder rate than the US (by some considerable margin).


this might have little to do with the death penalty and a lot to do with the shere amount of guns and the right to carry them in the USA.....just an observation not disagreeing with your post that said you quote for the entire USA population/murder rate but not all states carry the death sentence

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Biggles@4 January 2004 - 07:01
Busyman

I understand what you are saying. However, I am working from the pespective that the overwhelming majority of people are stakeholders in a stable society and would not even contemplate stealing lost property let alone kill someone.

Perhaps I am too removed from the society you live in. By your logic the EU with "light penalties" should be over-run with crime. On the other hand, the US with harsher penalties should have much less crime. Is this in fact the case?

:clover: This has nothing to do with my argument above, it is for J&#39;Pol and Lamsey - as a neutral I celebrate their happiness.
All crime has to do with many more things than their penalties that&#39;s for sure.

There&#39;s overpopulation (the most overlooked reason), access to guns, influence of television, blahblahblah.
Fix those parts of society and maybe we can get rid of the death penalty.

Maybe this can be Star Trek. :lol: (and btw wipe out poverty)


I understand what you are saying. However, I am working from the pespective that the overwhelming majority of people are stakeholders in a stable society and would not even contemplate stealing lost property let alone kill someone.



I know Biggles I know
Don&#39;t get me wrong, I some folks would abstain from crime due to their own morals regardless of the consequences of law.

[hobbes]

So we&#39;ve degenerated to "star trek", all geeks report to the stardeck thingey.

[creamer]

Originally posted by hobbes@4 January 2004 - 06:32
So we&#39;ve degenerated to "star trek", all geeks report to the stardeck thingey.
heres joni

[Busyman]

Originally posted by creamer+4 January 2004 - 21:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (creamer @ 4 January 2004 - 21:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-hobbes@4 January 2004 - 06:32
So we&#39;ve degenerated to "star trek", all geeks report to the stardeck thingey.
heres joni [/b][/quote]
:blink:

[ilw]

Originally posted by clocker@3 January 2004 - 14:08
Since you don&#39;t seem willing to expend the minimal effort it takes to "actually look up the definition", I&#39;ll do it for you...Merry Christmas.


Why is the administration of punishment ( and, by implication, the granting of reward) ethically abhorrent?

On a side note: How do you reconcile your obvious Utopian world view with your sig?
yeah ok my last post was very rushed and pretty crap(and a lack of time means this one will probably be too), anyway thanks for the definition.

but somewhere in that crap i had a theoretical point, if you ignore the crap about a better world, what i&#39;m talking about is the idea that if punishment is not necessary do should it still be carried out. Basically i reckon all punishment is just a means to an end, whereas i get the impression that some people here see it as something that must happen. i.e. if someone intentionally does you harm, should some form of harm be visited on them.
How miserable should people in prison be made to be?

As to why ethically i don&#39;t like punishment, (while i accept 100% it is necessary), i just don&#39;t think retribution in itself does anything positive or useful, however, i can of course see how the threat of it works as an effective deterrent.

My sig is an example of self defence and proportionate force. :rolleyes:

[j2k4]

Well, the poll looks like a pretty even split, which kind of surprises me, given this board&#39;s makeup. ;)

[vivitron 15]

Sorry to butt in here, with a rather unrelated comment, but I watched a film the other day "The Life of David Gale", which i reckon all of you who have expressed a significant interest in this might like....its def worth a look, and is very thought provoking. also if you do try it, if you can, get the dvd-extras which are also really good - in fact i may buy it if i see it cheap :)


back on topic now :01:

[l_p_4_7]

IMO the death penalty is the equivilent of fighting fire with fire.
It is no punishment, just an escape for the criminal, where they don&#39;t have to suffer or think about what they have done.

[clocker]

Originally posted by l_p_4_7@5 January 2004 - 17:14
IMO the death penalty is the equivilent of fighting fire with fire.

Terrible analogy.
IRL, you DO "fight fire with fire" effectively.

Have you any proof to support the contention that criminals spend any time at all "thinking of what they have done" beyond "Damn, I wish I hadn&#39;t gotten caught"?

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+6 January 2004 - 01:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 6 January 2004 - 01:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-l_p_4_7@5 January 2004 - 17:14
IMO the death penalty is the equivilent of fighting fire with fire.

Terrible analogy.
IRL, you DO "fight fire with fire" effectively.

Have you any proof to support the contention that criminals spend any time at all "thinking of what they have done" beyond "Damn, I wish I hadn&#39;t gotten caught"?[/b][/quote]
I have - It&#39;s common sense that they would.

[spazola]

i think a quote from shawshank redemption would be best placed here

"Outside I was an honest guy. I had to go to prison to become a crook."
For some criminals I think it&#39;s best just to give them what they deserve.

[clocker]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@5 January 2004 - 18:23

I have - It&#39;s common sense that they would.

That may be the case, however anyone who puts such high stock on "common sense" deserves little attention given to their opinion.
:blink:
And to think...I didn&#39;t even have to provide the petard.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@6 January 2004 - 02:23

I have - It&#39;s common sense that they would.
J&#39;Pol comes off waggish actually considering his previous posts.

That was done for my benefit. I&#39;m glad you responded first clocker, for I previously was not.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker+6 January 2004 - 04:23--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 6 January 2004 - 04:23)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-J&#39;Pol@5 January 2004 - 18:23

I have - It&#39;s common sense that they would.

That may be the case, however anyone who puts such high stock on "common sense" deserves little attention given to their opinion.
:blink:
And to think...I didn&#39;t even have to provide the petard. [/b][/quote]
Oh and the irony of my post was lost on you - I think not my shiny nappered friend.

[l_p_4_7]

Originally posted by clocker+5 January 2004 - 23:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 5 January 2004 - 23:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-l_p_4_7@5 January 2004 - 17:14
IMO the death penalty is the equivilent of fighting fire with fire.

Terrible analogy.
IRL, you DO "fight fire with fire" effectively.

Have you any proof to support the contention that criminals spend any time at all "thinking of what they have done" beyond "Damn, I wish I hadn&#39;t gotten caught"? [/b][/quote]
You don&#39;t think that murdering a murderer is hypocritical in the slightest?

It&#39;s the same scenario as what victims of bullying are usually told:

"If he/she hits you, hit him/her back."

Does this solve the problem or does it merely escalate and make it worse?

Edit: I&#39;m not saying that emprisonment, or for that matter any other punishment is truly effective in all given circumstances but all I&#39;m saying is that IMO the death penalty is unlawful and in the most part, contradictory of what is trying to be achieved.

[J'Pol]

And then you go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like


Originally posted by l_p_4_7@6 January 2004 - 23:39
.... but all I&#39;m saying is that IMO the death penalty is unlawful ....

Whether a punishment for a crime, decided upon by the legislators and administered by a judge, then subject to the appeals procedures is not a matter for your opinion. No matter in what high esteem you hold it.

Such a pity, after the rest of the post.

[l_p_4_7]

mur·der
n

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Question:
Is the death penalty not murder? Or am I under false pretences?

[Biggles]

lp47

It is what is called the small print

The rule is "Thou shalt not kill"

There are then umpteen codicils in which it is perfectly alright to kill (apparently) :frusty: From adultery to disobeying your parents (as Biblical examples)

By the time you get to the 18th century in England there were, if I recall correctly, over 110 things you could be legally killed for; including eating swan.

It is funny old world.

However, I have not actually seen any evidence that such draconian measures ever really deterred crime.

Billy, I am sorry to say I don&#39;t think the law stopped you killing, but rather it was basic human decency. Incidently, if you are interested, I think jail terms for murder in the UK have nigh on doubled. Having said that it always was possible to issue long sentences. Hindly and Brady got "life", has have a number of other dangerous psychopaths over the years.

There are 6 billion people on this planet (which is what I think you meant) the number who kill do not follow the penal codes of the region they live in. If this were the case there would be more murders in countries with no death penalty than in those with - I have seen not a single shred of evidence to suggest that this is the case.

Indeed, the contrary appears to be the case. I don&#39;t believe that the death penalty causes crime, but clearly other factors are at work in those societies and that problems within those societies require the retention of more barbaric customs (for the moment).

[l_p_4_7]

"An eye for an eye and the world soon goes blind."

[clocker]

Originally posted by l_p_4_7@6 January 2004 - 15:39

You don&#39;t think that murdering a murderer is hypocritical in the slightest?

It&#39;s the same scenario as what victims of bullying are usually told:

"If he/she hits you, hit him/her back."

Does this solve the problem or does it merely escalate and make it worse?

all I&#39;m saying is that IMO the death penalty is unlawful and in the most part, contradictory of what is trying to be achieved.
Define what "the problem" is.

In essence isn&#39;t the death penalty society&#39;s way of saying "We don&#39;t like you, you refuse to play by our rules, you are not worthy of being amongst us. You are HISTORY, pal."( to extend your playground metaphor a bit further...)?
Pretty effective problem solving, I would say.
Again, I must state that the entire question of "deterrence" is irrelevant I think.
If deterrence was the primary point of our legal system, then I believe that you would be hard pressed to find any law effective.
It is punishment, plain and simple.
As for your final sentence...
If the point of the death penalty is to rid society of an egregiously substandard member,( as I posit), then the death penalty is a supremely effective method of achieving the goal.


JP, of course I was aware of the irony...I simply couldn&#39;t resist the opportunity to use the word "petard".
A chance like that comes all too infrequently.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by l_p_4_7@6 January 2004 - 23:58
mur·der
n

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

Question:
Is the death penalty not murder? Or am I under false pretences?
No the death penalty is not murder. I don&#39;t agree with it, as you can possibly see, but it is not murder.

If there is a statutory provision which allows it, then it is legal and as such not unlawful.

Using your own definition it is not then murder. That is the very reason the word unlawful appears in the definition, to make certain conditions legal.

War, or the death penalty being two obvious situations, where if the word unlawful did not appear then the killing of one human by another would be murder.

This is not intended as sophistry, merely an honest opinion on the definition of the word and more importantly what that definition means. I think you may have misinterpreted the emphasis.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by clocker@7 January 2004 - 01:03
JP, of course I was aware of the irony...I simply couldn&#39;t resist the opportunity to use the word "petard".
A chance like that comes all too infrequently.
I used it within the last couple of days I am pleased to say, on this very forum.

Petard (http://klboard.ath.cx/index.php?showtopic=91905&hl=petard&st=30)

I agree, one cannot miss such chances, it would be wrong somehow.

[l_p_4_7]

Agreed, I understand that the word "murder" is not quite appropriate for the topic of the death sentence but was merely using it to portray how there is human intent to purposely kill someone(body) within this so-called form of "punishment".

The main reason, however, that I am against the death sentence is that I feel it achieves nothing.

Clocker, you mentioned how sentencing someone to death is "punishment".
Is it?

I think it&#39;s just an escape for the criminal who is cut off from the world without facing anything.

Does a murderer who had the will to kill another human being really care if he/she loses their own life when faced with the rest of their lives behind bars?
I&#39;m not so sure.

They committed the sin, and got caught but instead of being made to live out the rest of their horrible little lives, they are killed and cease to exist. Hence, an easy way out.

Also, the case that the death penalty protects society does not deem it an advantageous "punishment" method.
Imprisonment achieves this, does it not?

[Busyman]

Originally posted by Biggles@7 January 2004 - 00:26
Indeed, the contrary appears to be the case. I don&#39;t believe that the death penalty causes crime, but clearly other factors are at work in those societies and that problems within those societies require the retention of more barbaric customs (for the moment).
hmmmmm.........


All crime has to do with many more things than their penalties that&#39;s for sure.

There&#39;s overpopulation (the most overlooked reason), access to guns, influence of television, blahblahblah.
Fix those parts of society and maybe we can get rid of the death penalty.

Maybe this can be Star Trek.&nbsp; (and btw wipe out poverty)

I&#39;d love to get rid of the death penalty but right now we cannot.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by clocker@7 January 2004 - 01:03
Again, I must state that the entire question of "deterrence" is irrelevant I think.
If deterrence was the primary point of our legal system, then I believe that you would be hard pressed to find any law effective.
It is punishment, plain and simple.
As for your final sentence...
If the point of the death penalty is to rid society of an egregiously substandard member,( as I posit), then the death penalty is a supremely effective method of achieving the goal.



All laws are deterrents; from the smallest fine to the death penalty.
And yes it is obvious.

They don&#39;t deter everyone all the time.
Take them away and what happens?

Ask yourself (if it helps)

Do I obey ALL laws because I want to be a good citizen?

I have no change for the parking meter . Will I park here with the meter maid down the street? Will I park here if I knew I could without getting a ticket?

What makes any law "effective"?
For it to have an effect?

If it has an effect then it has to be "effective" in comparison to no law&#33;&#33;&#33;

If you fear certian consequences of breaking a law

YOU HAVE BEEN DETERRED&#33;&#33;&#33; DUH :blink:

[MagicNakor]

Not true. To use your parking lot example - my mother gets parking violations all the time. It doesn&#39;t stop her.

Why is this, you ask?

Because there is no free parking for any length greater than two hours nearby where she works. She&#39;s at the office for eight hours. She can&#39;t even move her car to another spot at the end of the two hours, or she gets a "re-parking" ticket, which is, oddly enough, more than just a normal parking ticket.

She pays her tickets when she gets them, but she has no other alternative than walking for two blocks up and three streets over, which she sometimes does in the summer, because it is shady there to leave the car.

She doesn&#39;t enjoy paying a &#036;15 fine. But there simply is no other option. As clocker said, "If deterrence was the primary point of our legal system, then I believe that you would be hard pressed to find any law effective."

:ninja:

[Busyman]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@7 January 2004 - 07:46
Not true. To use your parking lot example - my mother gets parking violations all the time. It doesn&#39;t stop her.

Why is this, you ask?

Because there is no free parking for any length greater than two hours nearby where she works. She&#39;s at the office for eight hours. She can&#39;t even move her car to another spot at the end of the two hours, or she gets a "re-parking" ticket, which is, oddly enough, more than just a normal parking ticket.

She pays her tickets when she gets them, but she has no other alternative than walking for two blocks up and three streets over, which she sometimes does in the summer, because it is shady there to leave the car.

She doesn&#39;t enjoy paying a &#036;15 fine. But there simply is no other option. As clocker said, "If deterrence was the primary point of our legal system, then I believe that you would be hard pressed to find any law effective."

:ninja:
Sorry Magic but you have to READ MY WHOLE POST, not a piece of it.


They don&#39;t deter **everyone all the time**


If you fear **certain** consequences of breaking a law

Let the penalty be a &#036;1000 fine, I guarantee she will park elsewhere (maybe take that 5 block walk).
Now If she was rich, a &#036;1000 fine might be a speck of dust.

A piece of my earlier post:


Run a red light; get a traffic ticket...if ya don&#39;t want a ticket..don&#39;t run the light
Run a red light; die in a car wreck....blahblahblah
One lady rode in a High Occupancy lane and got a ticket. Her response was that she&#39;s been doing it for years and she doesn&#39;t care about this one ticket because she saved the time getting to work. She said she would do it again. She was not deterred.
It happens.
My proof is not just that it is logical and sensible. You must read everything.



Way aheada ya Magic.

Your mother did not fear the penalty. If she really did, regardless of you saying there was "simply no other option", she&#39;d have found one. <_<

THERE ARE LEVELS OF DETERRENCE.

Nothing is 100% (including the death penalty).

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman@7 January 2004 - 06:59

I&#39;d love to get rid of the death penalty but right now we cannot.
We have in the UK.

I do not think our instances of murder are any higher than those places where the death penalty still exists.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+7 January 2004 - 22:12--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 7 January 2004 - 22:12)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@7 January 2004 - 06:59

I&#39;d love to get rid of the death penalty but right now we cannot.
We have in the UK.

I do not think our instances of murder are any higher than those places where the death penalty still exists. [/b][/quote]
I agree J&#39;Pol.

Your instances of murder are not higher than those states in the US.
That is why we shouldn&#39;t get rid of the death penalty.

[J'Pol]

Originally posted by Busyman+7 January 2004 - 22:28--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Busyman @ 7 January 2004 - 22:28)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@7 January 2004 - 22:12
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@7 January 2004 - 06:59

I&#39;d love to get rid of the death penalty but right now we cannot.
We have in the UK.

I do not think our instances of murder are any higher than those places where the death penalty still exists.
I agree J&#39;Pol.

Your instances of murder are not higher than those states in the US.
That is why we shouldn&#39;t get rid of the death penalty. [/b][/quote]
You appear to think that the state taking lives reduces the murder rate.

I disagree and prefer to live in a less barbaric society.

I am happy for us to agree our differences.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol+8 January 2004 - 02:00--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (J&#39;Pol @ 8 January 2004 - 02:00)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Busyman@7 January 2004 - 22:28

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@7 January 2004 - 22:12
<!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@7 January 2004 - 06:59

I&#39;d love to get rid of the death penalty but right now we cannot.
We have in the UK.

I do not think our instances of murder are any higher than those places where the death penalty still exists.
I agree J&#39;Pol.

Your instances of murder are not higher than those states in the US.
That is why we shouldn&#39;t get rid of the death penalty.
You appear to think that the state taking lives reduces the murder rate.

I disagree and prefer to live in a less barbaric society.

I am happy for us to agree our differences. [/b][/quote]
I, this time, was being waggish.

The death penalty is not the end and the beginning.
You live in the UK, I live in the US.

Your instances of murder to mine are mere correlation; not cause and effect.

One would wonder if after 20 more years would your murder rate be higher or lower.

[J'Pol]

Busyman

I can honestly say that I do not have the foggiest idea what that post is intended to mean.

I assume you question the long term benefits of our policy, with regard to the state killing it&#39;s citizens, or not as the case may be.

As I understand your question, my answer is - 40 years so far, still no adverse effects of removing the death penalty.

So far so good. You really should give it a try.

[Busyman]

Originally posted by J&#39;Pol@8 January 2004 - 02:34
Busyman

I can honestly say that I do not have the foggiest idea what that post is intended to mean.

I assume you question the long term benefits of our policy, with regard to the state killing it&#39;s citizens, or not as the case may be.

As I understand your question, my answer is - 40 years so far, still no adverse effects of removing the death penalty.

So far so good. You really should give it a try.
How can you not have the "foggiest idea" and still have
"I assume you question" and "As I understand your question". :blink:




What adverse effects would there be?

I&#39;ll admit I didn&#39;t know how long the death penalty was abolished but I don&#39;t know your murder rate either.

For all I know your murder rate is super low compared to ours.
Is this the result of NOT having the death penalty I wouldn&#39;t think so.


Point being...you are in the UK I am in the US.
different cultures
different way of life

What works for you may not work for Saudi Arabia.

De yoi unfertsnd mi niw? :huh:

(probably not) :lol:

[oldmancan]

Folks, thanks for sharing. This has been one of the most provocative threads I have participated in. I am firm on my position as posted previously. I support the death penalty as punishment in principle.

What I have come to realize is I am glad that I live in a society that has chosen not to exercise such recourse. As a democratic society the decision to abolish the death penalty was made. I support that decision just as strongly as I support the opinion that society had the right (not obligation) to use the death penalty as a punishment in the first place.

I think that the civilized/humane issue still remains more of a "means than ends" one. It is more how the death penalty is carried out than the fact that it was carried out.

One little aside. I can&#39;t provide any support, but I remember something from World Religions, Grade 11. According to an instructor the original text of the Ten Commandments did not say "Thou Shalt Not Kill", rather the commandment was "Thou Shalt Not Murder".

cheers, omc

[J'Pol]

I, this time, was being waggish.

The death penalty is not the end and the beginning.
You live in the UK, I live in the US.

Your instances of murder to mine are mere correlation; not cause and effect.

One would wonder if after 20 more years would your murder rate be higher or lower.

Genuinely not trying to be obtuse (a tautology I know) I really don&#39;t think it was that clear. So I tried to decipher the point, say what I thought it meant and reply to that.

It seemed like a reasonable course to take. If it was not, my apologies.

[Busyman]

No prob J&#39;Pol :D

[hobbes]

"Until death does us part"

That is the true penalty&#33;