• Nebraska abolishes death penalty
    57 replies, posted
I approve of Death Sentences. Not in the way you think. With the modern age, information and the ability to view others at long distances, to distinguish their voices and many more, then it doesn't become hearsay that so-and-so did it, but rather fact. I also believe that, barring Psychological disorders that cannot have empathy, those that do commit heinous crimes with no ability to be rehabilitated should be put down. I know it's dumb, I know people would disagree with me on semantics, but i'll just end in a checklist. -- Someone commits a heinous crime that extinguished and/or hindered the lives of many. -- Someone that can be perfectly, 100% identified through voice and appearance. -- Someone that has no ability to be rehabilitated, or has tried multiple times in the past. -- They have no empathy for people afflicted. -- The act was purposefully planned. Then yes, they should die. Through an extensive process that ensures that what they're doing is correct. Other, in no other circumstances, I would approve of the Death Penalty. But I do draw the line between rehabilitation and where it will fail, not due to the state, but due to the person in particular. And those people who cannot be rehabilitated (Barring Psycopaths with genetic disorders.) then they should not have further money wasted on them when they're going to die.
[QUOTE=Keyblockor1;47827123]I approve of Death Sentences. Not in the way you think. With the modern age, information and the ability to view others at long distances, to distinguish their voices and many more, then it doesn't become hearsay that so-and-so did it, but rather fact. I also believe that, barring Psychological disorders that cannot have empathy, those that do commit heinous crimes with no ability to be rehabilitated should be put down. I know it's dumb, I know people would disagree with me on semantics, but i'll just end in a checklist. -- Someone commits a heinous crime that extinguished and/or hindered the lives of many. -- Someone that can be perfectly, 100% identified through voice and appearance. -- Someone that has no ability to be rehabilitated, or has tried multiple times in the past. -- They have no empathy for people afflicted. -- The act was purposefully planned. Then yes, they should die. Through an extensive process that ensures that what they're doing is correct. Other, in no other circumstances, I would approve of the Death Penalty. But I do draw the line between rehabilitation and where it will fail, not due to the state, but due to the person in particular. And those people who cannot be rehabilitated (Barring Psycopaths with genetic disorders.) then they should not have further money wasted on them when they're going to die.[/QUOTE] Why not just imprisonment?
[QUOTE=Keyblockor1;47827123]I approve of Death Sentences. Not in the way you think. With the modern age, information and the ability to view others at long distances, to distinguish their voices and many more, then it doesn't become hearsay that so-and-so did it, but rather fact.[/quote] So you believe in systematic, legalized, and expensive murder? [QUOTE=Keyblockor1;47827123]I also believe that, barring Psychological disorders that cannot have empathy, those that do commit heinous crimes with no ability to be rehabilitated [i][b]should be put down.[/b][/i][/quote] This phrase is pretty dehumanizing and implies comparisons to dangerous/wild animals. Great job. [QUOTE=Keyblockor1;47827123]I know it's dumb, I know people would disagree with me on semantics, but i'll just end in a checklist. -- Someone commits a heinous crime that extinguished and/or hindered the lives of many. -- Someone that can be perfectly, 100% identified through voice and appearance. -- Someone that has no ability to be rehabilitated, or has tried multiple times in the past. -- They have no empathy for people afflicted. -- The act was purposefully planned. Then yes, they should die. Through an extensive process that ensures that what they're doing is correct.[/quote] Execution is a heinous crime that extinguishes a life and hinders the lives of many, the legal system can't show empathy for the victim, and the act is planned 100% of the time. [QUOTE=Keyblockor1;47827123]Other, in no other circumstances, I would approve of the Death Penalty. But I do draw the line between rehabilitation and where it will fail, not due to the state, but due to the person in particular. And those people who cannot be rehabilitated (Barring Psycopaths with genetic disorders.) then they should not have further money wasted on them when they're going to die.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately, as a taxpayer, you support whatever is voted in by the majority. [editline]28th May 2015[/editline] There is only one kind of death. You can classify circumstances and causes but death is always the same: bad.
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;47824464]Is it more costly to execute a man or to keep him in prison for life? This is the only piece of info I need before I can form a complete opinion.[/QUOTE] I don't think cost should be the only factor when looking at the criminal justice system.. Like sure, we could throw people found guilty into an arena to fight eachother to the death and use the revenue from that to fund social programs but I don't think that would be very ethical.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;47827826]I don't think cost should be the only factor when looking at the criminal justice system.. Like sure, we could throw people found guilty into an arena to fight eachother to the death and use the revenue from that to fund social programs but I don't think that would be very ethical.[/QUOTE] Already talked through this
[QUOTE=Explosions;47826883]1. This deterrent theory demonstrably does not work 2. You're implying that either people can never change their attitude or mindset (be "rehabilitated") or that some crimes are "ultimate" and deserve more punishment for an unstated reason[/QUOTE] 1. That is utter baloney, the simplest example is when a parent spanks children. They associate the pain of spanking with the act they did and do not do it again. Knowing this happens in children, you can easily understand this happening later in life making deterrence all that possible and true. 2. I never implied that people cannot change, but I did say execution is the ultimate punishment. The reason being that it is permanent and irreversible. Once the criminal is executed they are dead forever. If you can think of a punishment worse than the termination of your life then please feel free to share.
[QUOTE=Ceil;47828106]1. That is utter baloney, the simplest example is when a parent spanks children. They associate the pain of spanking with the act they did and do not do it again. Knowing this happens in children, you can easily understand this happening later in life making deterrence all that possible and true. 2. I never implied that people cannot change, but I did say execution is the ultimate punishment. The reason being that it is permanent and irreversible. Once the criminal is executed they are dead forever. If you can think of a punishment worse than the termination of your life then please feel free to share.[/QUOTE] Because people can clearly be killed more than once, right? :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Ceil;47828106]1. That is utter baloney, the simplest example is when a parent spanks children. They associate the pain of spanking with the act they did and do not do it again. Knowing this happens in children, you can easily understand this happening later in life making deterrence all that possible and true. 2. I never implied that people cannot change, but I did say execution is the ultimate punishment. The reason being that it is permanent and irreversible. Once the criminal is executed they are dead forever. If you can think of a punishment worse than the termination of your life then please feel free to share.[/QUOTE] 1. And because of this wonderful bit of conditioning, children absolutely never misbehave or disobey their parents. Of course, children who are struck by their parents later end up becoming the best citizens that society has to offer. :downs: I feel that mentioning the fact that US states using the death penalty have higher murder rates than non-death penalty states would be tiresome considering how many times others have brought it up on this same forum. Oh well. [url=http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence]There it is.[/url] 2. You misunderstood me. I was saying that, by your logic, some crimes must be special somehow in that they deserve the death penalty as punishment while other crimes do not, and that you had not explained this special quality.
[QUOTE=Explosions;47828138]1. And because of this wonderful bit of conditioning, children absolutely never misbehave or disobey their parents. Of course, children who are struck by their parents later end up becoming the best citizens that society has to offer. :downs: I feel that mentioning the fact that US states using the death penalty have higher murder rates than non-death penalty states would be tiresome considering how many times others have brought it up on this same forum. Oh well. [url=http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/the-death-penalty-and-deterrence]There it is.[/url] 2. You misunderstood me. I was saying that, by your logic, some crimes must be special somehow in that they deserve the death penalty as punishment while other crimes do not, and that you had not explained this special quality.[/QUOTE] 1. Not what I was implying at all. I implied the capacity to associate two things which leads to deterrence. Then there is the graph. Oh wow, one chart from one website. ground breaking. Even if the sources of that article are from [I]One[/I] credible website, the graph is not credible in the fact that the two compared things are unrelated. Murder rate has more than one cause, so comparing them by a single variable can lead to biased results. It is like comparing those who drink water to people who die, there is a correlation but they are unrelated. Also from the random articles I have read there is no clear evidence for or against deterrence, so either I am wrong and you are right or vis-versa 2. Pretty sure the termination of a life is "Something special" otherwise there would not be laws against it worldwide. Sorry for not explaining what murder is, I thought you grasped the concept.
[QUOTE=Ceil;47828356]1. Not what I was implying at all. I implied the capacity to associate two things which leads to deterrence. Then there is the graph. Oh wow, one chart from one website. ground breaking. Even if the sources of that article are from [I]One[/I] credible website, the graph is not credible in the fact that the two compared things are unrelated. Murder rate has more than one cause, so comparing them by a single variable can lead to biased results. It is like comparing those who drink water to people who die, there is a correlation but they are unrelated. [B]Also from the random articles I have read there is no clear evidence for or against deterrence, so either I am wrong and you are right or vis-versa[/B] 2. Pretty sure the termination of a life is "Something special" otherwise there would not be laws against it worldwide. Sorry for not explaining what murder is, I thought you grasped the concept.[/QUOTE] So in the absence of evidence you find it equally likely that the death penalty provides a deterrent as that it doesn't? And upon this you decide that we have a right to execute people vs let them live out their lives in prison or be rehabilitated? How do you reach this conclusion?
And to think with the 4 % of innocent people receiving the death penalty, people would never support it but lo, people are bloodthirsty savages and deserve no respect.
While I understand the arguments against, I do believe that if you commit multiple murders in the first degree or kill a Cop / Soldier and you can be 100% proven guilty the Death Penalty should be on the table. Those are Lines that should never be crossed. I also believe that Rehabilitation is important but at the end of the day you have to take responsibility for your actions.
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;47829652]While I understand the arguments against, I do believe that if you commit multiple murders in the first degree or kill a Cop / Soldier and you can be 100% proven guilty the Death Penalty should be on the table. Those are Lines that should never be crossed. I also believe that Rehabilitation is important but at the end of the day you have to take responsibility for your actions.[/QUOTE] but... what does killing them DO????
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47830172]but... what does killing them DO????[/QUOTE] Permanently removes them from ever being a threat to anybody ever again.
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;47829652]While I understand the arguments against, I do believe that if you commit multiple murders in the first degree or kill a Cop / Soldier and you can be [b]100% proven guilty[/b] the Death Penalty should be on the table. Those are Lines that should never be crossed. I also believe that Rehabilitation is important but at the end of the day you have to take responsibility for your actions.[/QUOTE] This can never happen. In any case, why kill them? Just lock them up. Maybe if you are a mature society like Norway, lock them up in a nice place with plans to rehabilitation, and if they can't be rehabilitated, keep renewing their sentence. [editline]29th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Starlight 456;47830183]Permanently removes them from ever being a threat to anybody ever again.[/QUOTE] Life imprisonment does that too. See: Anders Breivik.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47830183]Permanently removes them from ever being a threat to anybody ever again.[/QUOTE] lol, you mean like... prison?
In some crimes is necessary,for example;terrorism.
[QUOTE=k@nazta!;47830229]In some crimes is necessary,for example;terrorism.[/QUOTE] why?
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuhZZpC7jOg]My first thought was immediately good old Steve.[/url]
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;47830208]lol, you mean like... prison?[/QUOTE] You can attack guards or other prisoners in prison.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47830260]You can attack guards or other prisoners in prison.[/QUOTE] the state of prisons is another debate unto itself
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47830260]You can attack guards or other prisoners in prison.[/QUOTE] That's why prisons often have maximum security areas for dangerous inmates
[QUOTE=Keyblockor1;47827123]I approve of Death Sentences. [B]Not in the way you think.[/B] With the modern age, information and the ability to view others at long distances, to distinguish their voices and many more, then it doesn't become hearsay that so-and-so did it, but rather fact. I also believe that, barring Psychological disorders that cannot have empathy, those that do commit heinous crimes with no ability to be rehabilitated should be put down. I know it's dumb, I know people would disagree with me on semantics, but i'll just end in a checklist. -- Someone commits a heinous crime that extinguished and/or hindered the lives of many. -- Someone that can be perfectly, 100% identified through voice and appearance. -- Someone that has no ability to be rehabilitated, or has tried multiple times in the past. -- They have no empathy for people afflicted. -- The act was purposefully planned. Then yes, they should die. Through an extensive process that ensures that what they're doing is correct. Other, in no other circumstances, I would approve of the Death Penalty. But I do draw the line between rehabilitation and where it will fail, not due to the state, but due to the person in particular. And those people who cannot be rehabilitated (Barring Psycopaths with genetic disorders.) then they should not have further money wasted on them when they're going to die.[/QUOTE] No, no this is exactly in the way I thought you would approve of them. Forensic science isn't a certain as you think, and the fact that you have to use euphemisms like "put down" kinda goes to show how terrible what you're saying really is. About your last part about wasted money, death sentences are probably the most expensive method of punishment. And how do you ascertain a person's character with 100% certainty? You're being totally naive here, and honestly I just hope you can use your age as an excuse.
I used to be pro-death penalty myself, but after taking a re-look at it, there are many disadvantages and problems with the death sentence. There's miscarriage of justice, uncertainties in forensic science, the plain concept of an eye for an eye, and much more; But my personal viewpoint is, can we, fallible human beings, be trusted to give judgment on other people, especially robbing another of us of their life? Granted there are individuals who've committed such heinous crimes, with all the evidence being enough to showcase them as being as rotten as last month's fish, who it might be argued that it would be best to just permanently remove from society, and that in such a way that they can never commit another crime again, to wit, by killing them, but how can not life imprisonment serve the same purpose? they are removed from society, and save for the minuscule likelihood of escape, which is usually argued by those in favor of the death penalty, are rendered harmless. In theory, the only way something like a death penalty would even work, and I'm only speaking theoretically, is for some superior being or entity to be the ones examining the crimes and passing sentence on the accused, and only for the most serious of crimes. Lots of crimes are crimes of passion, committed in the heat of the moment. Anybody, that includes you and me, might see a lapse of judgment that leads to them making a mistake that can't easily be made amends for. And I say a superior being with absolute neutrality, to have no emotional attachment to the parties involved in the system of justice, and no possibility of being bribed or otherwise coerced into twisting justice, but also being capable of being merciful, if the occasion calls for it. And there we come to another problem; who watches the watcher? how can we be absolutely certain that the watcher itself, or themselves if we're looking at a multiple, might not fall into corruption as the eons go by? What guarantee would we have of such a being or beings sticking to their moral codes even in the face of injury or death? Like I said, all of this is theoretical, and unlikely to ever happen in this our version of reality, but its already been proved time and again, that harsh punishments have no guarantee of lowering the crime rate. People who wish to commit crimes will always commit crimes, and there's the can of worms about crimes of passion or opportunity, not to mention that the mentally ill are not responsible for their own mistakes unless it can be proven their crime wasnt a deliberate result of their mental illness and even then, it can be argued as a point for leniency. tl;dr - I don't trust the death penalty as a form of administering justice. Not any more. There is simply too much potential for misuse and abuse.
[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;47821387]revenge does not equal justice[/QUOTE] But punishment [i]is[/i] justice. The literal goal of justice is retribution.
[QUOTE=Michael haxz;47829652]While I understand the arguments against, I do believe that if you commit multiple murders in the first degree or kill a Cop / Soldier and you can be 100% proven guilty the Death Penalty should be on the table. Those are Lines that should never be crossed.[/QUOTE] I have to ask, what is the difference between killing a human, who's job is to put themselves in the line for a cause (soldier, police, etc...), and killing a human who helps others, and does good every day, but doesn't expect a chance of being stabbed or shot while doing their job (paramedics, the fire department, doctors, nurses etc.). Wouldn't that be the same, if not worse than your example? Isn't the mear idea that some of us are different and killing us is "worse" or "better" reprehensible? Just my two cents. [editline]29th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Moupi;47830421]But punishment [i]is[/i] justice. The literal goal of justice is retribution.[/QUOTE] What about vindication? Reparation? Protection? Reformation even. There are many different aims of justice, not just retribution.
The thing I find odd is that people who are pro death penalty are suggesting that murder (i.e. deliberate, cold blooded killing of a defenceless person) can be justified. The rationale for why it is justified is different, but the basic concept is the same. Also, on deterrence, the death penalty is given for the exact sort of crimes one commits because they do not care at all about the outcome. Take religious terrorists. If they get killed, they just go to heaven. Crimes of passion? Those don't tend to based on a ration consideration of risk/reward. The only thing the death penalty gives is a sadistic feeling of revenge. Otherwise, it costs more money, innocent lives and opportunities with absolutely no real benefit over a proper prison system. Would you be willing to be the innocent person killed because of a flawed legal system? If no, how can you ask someone else to be?
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;47830186]This can never happen.[/QUOTE] Even in cases when Blatant Video proof combined with other sources of Evidence are available?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.