Cidien Wrote:I didn't mean it needs to go, I mean it should only be used when were 100% certain they're guilty. Guess I thought that point was fairly obvious.
The point can't work. They don't prosecute people when they're only half certain they are guilty. They people who were proved innocent were thought to be guilty. You shouldn't even send someone to jail if you only think they might be guilty.
gubi-gubi Wrote:The point can't work. They don't prosecute people when they're only half certain they are guilty. They people who were proved innocent were thought to be guilty. You shouldn't even send someone to jail if you only think they might be guilty.
The thing is that the death penalty is such an extreme measure that's the basic point here. Sending someone to jail and finding out their innocent later on is very bad to say the least but the death penalties a hell of a lot worse.
Puppet Master Wrote:The thing is that the death penalty is such an extreme measure that's the basic point here. Sending someone to jail and finding out their innocent later on is very bad to say the least but the death penalties a hell of a lot worse.
That's my point but Cidien is saying it should be used when people are 100% certain the person is guilty. You can't always be 100% and I bet the people who sentanced the innocent people to death row were 100% certain they were guilty.
gubi-gubi Wrote:That's my point but Cidien is saying it should be used when people are 100% certain the person is guilty. You can't always be 100% and I bet the people who sentanced the innocent people to death row were 100% certain they were guilty.
I can't comment on that because none of us know what goes through those peoples minds. The entire situation hell most of life period is caught in the shades of grey. Makes you wonder what goes through a jurys mind in that kind of situation.
Puppet Master Wrote:The entire situation hell most of life period is caught in the shades of grey.
That's why there should be no system as black and white as life or death decisions made in the court room.
gubi-gubi Wrote:That's why there should be no system as black and white as life or death decisions made in the court room.
I have no comment on that either way but the world is as it is. I know I wouldn?t want to be on the jury in a trial that causes that to even become an option.
Puppet Master Wrote:I have no comment on that either way but the world is as it is. I know I wouldn?t want to be on the jury in a trial that causes that to even become an option.
exactly.
I live in canada where we don't have the death penalty and i'm quite happy with that. I'm completely for having someone spend the rest of their life in prison, but death is one of those things that just isn't reversible which I'm sure is one of the reasons we got rid of it in the first place. As you can never be 100% certain that someone is guilty and if their dead you can't exactly go and appologise if your wrong, I have always seen the death penalty as being legalized murder and I don't know about you, but I really don't see killing someone else as being an efficient form of justice.
If you kill them they have a 0% chance of inflicting future harm upon other people. Even in jail there's the chance that they'll escape and hurt people again or people within the jail itself.
I thought about it for just a minute or so and there are cases where I support the death pentalty. There have been events in the U.S. in the past few years that warrant the death penalty and I DON'T mean a painless one in the past few years. I am talking about the sniper case from a few years back as an example. In cases like that the death penalty is approriate the problem is it's too easy. The fact that scum that is literally without a shadow of a doubt guilty is shown mercy with a "painless and merciful" punishment. The painless bullshits just not right sometimes showing mercy to those who deserve to suffer is sad in my eyes as sick as that may sound. It's best to eliminate scum like that from this world so that they cannot return there no better than terrorists. Interpet that as you want but it is something to consider. Those rare casesthat do exist in this world where the concept of "an Eye for an Eye" is apporiate.
You raise a number of good points. And anything I've written below is merely my opinion, meaning that I'm not saying your views are wrong, just that I may disagree with them.
Puppet Master Wrote:It's best to eliminate scum like that from this world so that they cannot return there no better than terrorists.
The difference (at least the way I see it.) between terrorists and serial killers, is that many of the so called "terrorists" believe that what they are doing is right. I'm not saying that this goes for all of them, but it does apply to a good number of them. I may not necessarily agree with their methods but people have to realise that there are always two sides to an argument.
Serial killers on the other hand, know perfectly well that what they are doing is wrong and sometimes even do what they do for the fun/thrill of it. That is unless they don't know, in which case they are mentally ill and I certainly don't agree with killing people who are mentally retarded or unstable or whatever.
Puppet Master Wrote:Those rare casesthat do exist in this world where the concept of "an Eye for an Eye" is apporiate.
I can see where you are comming from there. There have been a number of cases where the people have obviously been guilty and I could see where the death penalty might be appropriate at times. But there's always the other side of me which says "what if by some slim chance, they aren't guilty?" and the fact that deep down, I still see the death penalty as being legalized murder.
Puppet Master Wrote:The painless bullshits just not right sometimes showing mercy to those who deserve to suffer
There I definitley have to disagree. I in no way, see how causing them the pain or whatever else they caused their victims makes you any better than them in the end. What you have to realise is that if they feel no remorse or anything whatsoever for their actions, then in the end, they are still going to have the last laugh no matter what. It won't matter to them wether or not you kill them or if they are left to die in the prison system.
Anywho, I'm definitley done for now. Flame away people.
vegeta76 Wrote:You raise a number of good points. And anything I've written below is merely my opinion, meaning that I'm not saying your views are wrong, just that I may disagree with them.
I respect that if everyone agreed with me this would be a waste of time.
vegeta76 Wrote:The difference (at least the way I see it.) between terrorists and serial killers, is that many of the so called "terrorists" believe that what they are doing is right. I'm not saying that this goes for all of them, but it does apply to a good number of them. I may not necessarily agree with their methods but people have to realise that there are always two sides to an argument.
Serial killers on the other hand, know perfectly well that what they are doing is wrong and sometimes even do what they do for the fun/thrill of it. That is unless they don't know, in which case they are mentally ill and I certainly don't agree with killing people who are mentally retarded or unstable or whatever.
I can see where you are comming from there. There have been a number of cases where the people have obviously been guilty and I could see where the death penalty might be appropriate at times. But there's always the other side of me which says "what if by some slim chance, they aren't guilty?" and the fact that deep down, I still see the death penalty as being legalized murder.
A terrorist is just a killer who tries to bend their own beliefs and make it seem like what their doing is right. I really hate it when people try to use bullshit like that to justify their actions and the reason I compare the two is that they both take human life. One just comes up with some bullshit to try and justify it while the other as you said somehow gets a sick pleasure. Overall though killing is killing in these situations and the reason I say "these situations" will be explained further down.
vegeta76 Wrote:There I definitley have to disagree. I in no way, see how causing them the pain or whatever else they caused their victims makes you any better than them in the end. What you have to realise is that if they feel no remorse or anything whatsoever for their actions, then in the end, they are still going to have the last laugh no matter what. It won't matter to them wether or not you kill them or if they are left to die in the prison system.
Anywho, I'm definitley done for now. Flame away people.
I guess you could say being better than them isnt the issue in my eyes. As Cidien said what if they manage to some how escape? I do think people should think about this though in all of these situations what if someone you knew was the victim? Than there's the other side of the coin...
In regards to the mentally unstable people there still a problem because whether they realize it or not their still killers nothing more. The only thing I can say about those cases is that it's best to keep them off the streets at all costs because theres no long it would take for their mind to snap in two again.
Finally as far as no remorse goes it's true that nothing will change that so making them sit in a cell for years won't do shit so what's the point? They cause nothing but problems and as sick as it will sound once again they basically forefitted their lives(I mean EXTREME cases).
That's all for that subject but I do have another question regarding an issue that is sorta connected. Things such as killing to defend your own life. Where does defense end and murder begin? Ill leave it at that for now since I need to sleep. I look forward to seeing what everyone has to say.
I don't think you'd ever need to kill to safe your own life. Just fuck em up so they can't move
But this is hard. Depends on the situation. If its a burglar who breaks into Mike Tysons house or some old lady's house makes a huge difference and if he/she was armed.
And what's defence? Where's the limit? What if someone's intention is to break both your legs. Can you kill him to protect yourself?
Puppet Master Wrote:There have been events in the U.S. in the past few years that warrant the death penalty and I DON'T mean a painless one in the past few years. I am talking about the sniper case from a few years back as an example. In cases like that the death penalty is approriate the problem is it's too easy. The fact that scum that is literally without a shadow of a doubt guilty is shown mercy with a "painless and merciful" punishment. The painless bullshits just not right sometimes showing mercy to those who deserve to suffer is sad in my eyes as sick as that may sound.
All you are doing is giving in to your emotions and wanting revenge. It's not a nice emotion and is pretty primative and humas first reaction to any crime in the past was wanting to inflict pain and death on people.
Cidien Wrote:If you kill them they have a 0% chance of inflicting future harm upon other people. Even in jail there's the chance that they'll escape and hurt people again or people within the jail itself.
People can stay on death row for like 12 years before they are killed. That's more than enough time to kill someone else in jail or escape.
I guess I have been drawn in.
I have read a few times in this thread that the crime can't be proven one-hundred percent, so the death penalty is just too risky because death can't be taken back (that is obviously a paraphrase
). Well, that is true in a lot of circumstances, but there are definitely occasions where people are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. Like surveillance footage of them actually killing someone or a room full of witnesses at a robbery. It was also said that the death penalty is a punishment that goes to far. I also don't think that is the case in all circumstances.
I read in this thread as well that some were worried about people that have mental problems. Those are separate cases here. Even slight mental trauma is usually brought up in a case to help defendants, and in most cases the smallest skeleton in a closet can help get the accused a better deal. The courts no longer take that stuff lightly. However, If you walk into a quicky and cap the clerk and a customer, just to walk out with like fifty bucks and a carton of cigs, then your punishment should be to pay for that horrible and meaningless crime with your life. There was nothing wrong with you to make you go kill those people. Taking a gun into a convenience store to rob the place is a conscious action, and not something a disturbed person would do JUST because they have problems. They could have robbed the place and not killed them, but they took lives anyway. Taking theirs is not revenge; it is simply the price you must pay in exchange for your horrible actions.
But this issue is not a plain one. When death is involved any small variables become vary significant ones. I believe that some changes do need to be made to systems that have this sort of punishment because, at the very least, we owe it to hour nature as human beings and to TRUE justice to make absolutely sure before the condemned are put to death. What kinds of changes need to be made? I think there should be a special law organization that go over cases and decide independently if there is truly enough doubtlessness to go through with the death penalty as punishment. This is of course just a different kind of filtering system, but their job is totally different from deciding guilt or innocence. They will be deciding solely if we are sure enough that they can be put to death. This would mean they have different criteria to judge the facts by. Beyond that, I?m not sure what would go into to deciding positive or not, but I think some kind of system like this would be beneficial and more effective than what we have now.
So it should be clear that I?m torn on the issue. Almost everyone should be torn. Anyone who is like ?kill!? all the time is just an idiot. And people that don?t think death should come to the perpetrators of some horrible crimes are probably of a bit off as well. If the death penalty is seen a proper punishment it should always be an issue that people stand divided on. If it ever becomes to easy to do away with criminals, that is the time that it needs to disappear.
I don't have any problem with killing others for defense, assuming that's what happened. If someone breaks into your house and you shoot them in the leg and can hold them there until the police get there but decide to shoot them in the head while you wait.... that's murder. Again, assuming that person is able to be controlled and no longer a threat to you. If there's still a good chance that person can do you harm, may as well shoot them and protect yourself. If the person rushes at you and you shoot them in the chest and kill them I don't see how anyone could call that murder. That person should not have been in your house or attacking you...