Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / General => Topic started by: CU_AMiGA on January 31, 2005, 11:58:10 AM
-
Hello,
Me and Sumner7 are involved in a debate concerning the death penalty (for college work). We are argueing against it in this case. We have done some research of the history and the controversial issues of the death penalty. But i am posting here to ask what are the people's opinion on the death penalty. I would also be grateful for anyone who posts any other facts and figures to back up the arguement, either side of the arguement. Thank you for your time. :-)
Best Regards,
-
The death penalty has one drawback - it's permanent.
Miscarriages of justice do happen, but you can't bring someone back from the dead. Personally, I view the concept of the state taking a life from anyone with extreme distaste.
-
PMC wrote:
The death penalty has one drawback - it's permanent.
Miscarriages of justice do happen, but you can't bring someone back from the dead. Personally, I view the concept of the state taking a life from anyone with extreme distaste.
Anyone taking another persons life is distasteful.
-
PMC wrote:
The death penalty has one drawback - it's permanent.
Miscarriages of justice do happen, but you can't bring someone back from the dead. Personally, I view the concept of the state taking a life from anyone with extreme distaste.
Furthermore, nobody is ever really held accountable for said miscarriages, save in the cases of false testimony (or at least I would imagine). Not that they really could be - one can hardly convict the jury / judge of manslaughter.
Another question you could ask yourself include, does it really work as a deterrant? Do places that implement the death penalty have a lower incidence of those crimes that warrant it relative to those (socially/culturally comparable places) that dont?
-
I would argue for the death penalty in some cases: such as genocide, torture and crimes against humanity.
I would do it by the following means: dumping them on an island in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by minefields so that no one can come in and rescue them. If they survive so be it, they are no longer a burden on any given society, if they die, well tough. I'd give them enough food for one month, a cyanide tablet and a firm shove out of the side of the helicopter.
Let nature take its course with these scumbags, we at least would be giving them a sporting chance.
-
It's too easy to hate, and too hard to forgive
ppl who did these atrocities, were mostly heavily mentally influenced by the phenomenon war. War is a mental disease, a shortcoming. When a war begins, suddenly the almost genetical cultural aspects of humans, as feelings towards other ppl are kinda disabled. A human becomes a thing. This happens to two sides and they influence each other to hate the other side, like a flywheel. Hatred of other the other side's committed atrocities, initiating even more gruesome atrocities being committed.
Instead of the self-loving thought "I would never do such a thing, so punish that monster as gruesome as possible", better calm ppl down with reason when you see it happening to begin, or offer a place for refugees. Or try to flee the place asap if you want to stay alive.
No, for real prevention of war (and the atrocities committed in a war) the male part of the lower class, with lower EQ and IQ should be castrated ;-)
oh, and btw, death penalty?
never. (mostly for the reasons mentioned by Karlos)
-
I do not hate these people, I pity them, because in all their hate and ignorance, they are unable to apreciate true beauty.
-
the_leander wrote:
I do not hate these people, I pity them,
And therefore, you're "dumping them on an island in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by minefields so that no one can come in and rescue them."
You know, what I wanted to say that you're taking it from the wrong side of the story. Wich they did too, in their frenzy.
You are/want to be Zen, right?
Then you have to see these things from a certain distance to act correctly.
they are unable to apreciate true beauty.
The major part of the world is unable to appreciate true beauty.
I pity myself more about that than I pity them (considering their louthmouthedness), they live quite happy in their ignorance it seems...
-
Speelgoedmannetje wrote:
the_leander wrote:
I do not hate these people, I pity them,
And therefore, you're "dumping them on an island in the middle of nowhere, surrounded by minefields so that no one can come in and rescue them."
You know, what I wanted to say that you're taking it from the wrong side of the story. Wich they did too, in their frenzy.
You are/want to be Zen, right?
Then you have to see these things from a certain distance to act correctly.
No, I would give them the chance to live under their own steam away from the rest of society, if they were unable to do so, or unwilling to do so, then nature would take its course. It also means that no one else has to deal with the mental impact of taking another life. Its cold, I know, but it at least gives them a far greater chance of living out the rest of their lives in such a way that doesn't cost us anything and doesn't effect us after the fact. The minefields are there to maintain their exile, nothing more.
It offers them a chance, which is much more then many of them ever gave their victims. I'm not saying its perfect, but it would be very effective.
they are unable to apreciate true beauty.
The major part of the world is unable to appreciate true beauty.
I pity myself more about that than I pity them (considering their louthmouthedness), they live quite happy in their ignorance it seems...[/quote]
Ignorance kills, and depending on how powerfull the ignorant are how many are killed by it.
-
PMC wrote:
The death penalty has one drawback - it's permanent.
Miscarriages of justice do happen, but you can't bring someone back from the dead. Personally, I view the concept of the state taking a life from anyone with extreme distaste.
I agree wholeheartedly with this stance. A single life taken for a crime not comitted by the convicted is enough reason for me to be against the death penalty. Not a single penal system is watertight enough to guarantee this will not happen.
-
There seem to be two reasons why people are against the death penalty:
1) Objection to the taking of a life (even if he is guilty) on moral grounds.
2) Objection to the death penalty because of the possibility that an innocent life is taken in error.
My thoughts on (1):
If the guy is guilty (and for the sake of my argument in point (1) I am going to stipulate that he is guilty), I don't have a problem with the death penalty for the following crimes:
Murder (1st degree, planned)
Rape
Child molestation
There are no mitigating circumstances for these crimes, and any individual who commits one of those three crimes forfeits his right to his place in society immediately. He knows the risk before he does it. You don't put down all your chips on one number at the roulette wheel and then cry when you lose. You don't reach out for those chips afterwards. They are gone. If you were concerned about losing them, you should not have bet them in the first place.
My thoughts on (2):
This is entirely a matter of evidence. It comes down to whether the evidence against the accused is relevant and is of the required quality. And I agree that mistakes do happen, whether they happen at the time that evidence is collected, or the time that evidence is analysed, or the time that the analysis of the evidence is presented. The evidence has to be unshakeable. This is a real concern. At the moment one form of evidence that I think is unshakeable is DNA evidence. And even so, to protect against mistakes related to evidence handling (or even nefarious laboratory activity) I would say independent DNA testing (by the defense team) would be required if there was to be confidence in the analysis. Ironically it is DNA evidence that has CLEARED many of the people who have been wrongfully executed. I suppose as regards (2) I would be more concerned about the kind of evidence that is being used to convict the accused. If the guy is caught in the act, arrested and confesses, I think that is good enough evidence to convict him. But I acknowledge that there are many cases where I would not be happy to see someone convicted, based on the quality and type of evidence being presented.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4219627.stm
-
The death penalty is such a boring subject. It's always discussed as if it were an epidemic problem when in all reality it's way way down at the bottom of the list. People writing papers on the subject, etc.
Why not write a paper on something that has less shock value but more real relevance to peoples lives, like, I don't know, seatbelts.
Or, here's something that hasn't quite made a stink yet, how about the return of the debtors prison? Yep, it's back, and it's starting to become more common.
-
Debtors prison eh? Can you put the government in one of them?
-
@ Kenny
Kenny Richey didn't do himself any favours by being pissed out of his head and smoking hashish on the night of the fire. Even the defense attorney's opening statement pretty much describes Richey as a Chav.
"...We're going to show you a society here that accepts no responsibility; that lives for the joy of drinking alcohol; that lives for the joy of taking different types of drugs. And, I'm not exempting Kenny from that group either..."
He goes on (the defense attorney) to say that the people who were always partying together had no income other than support, and many of them had criminal records that he thought was a contributing factor in their income. (He wanted to discredit witnesses and use Richey's drunken state as a defense)
Perhaps Kenny got set a bad example by his brother:
"..Tom Richey is serving a 65-year sentence for shooting dead a shop assistant while high on drugs..."
from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4208175.stm
But the person who really needs her arse kicked is Hope Collins, who left her 2-year-old in Richey's care in the first place.
I'd like to know what the apparent 'flaws' in the original trial are, because I've read the first 70 pages of the transcript but the whole thing is 1334 pages :-o
Would be nice to see where they went wrong, and go back to the original, just concentrating on the flaws.
-
Ok this is going to get ugly - :-P (Stirs controversy and hides) :crazy:
No death penalty but abortion's OK ?
An individual commits a anus crime and is allowed to live.
A baby is put to death because of inconvenience.
Both knowingly kill.
But one does it out of convenience.
Something is wrong with this mental image ? :-?
:ranting:
-
a fetus is not a baby
-
cecilia wrote:
a fetus is not a baby
When does the fetus become a baby? My daughter was born 6 weeks early, she certainly wasn't a fetus when she came out.
-
So when does a fetus become a baby?
:-?
-
T_Bone wrote:
cecilia wrote:
a fetus is not a baby
When does the fetus become a baby? My daughter was born 6 weeks early, she certainly wasn't a fetus when she came out.
Except abortion at that late stage isn't legal in the UK afaik, so it can't be claimed that this would be viewed as "OK".
You might as well turn this into a vegetarian debate and say "why is it wrong to kill people, but okay to kill harmless animals?"
-
@ Cecilia
"a fetus is not a baby"
-----------------
fe·tus ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fetes)
n. pl. fe·tus·es
*. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.
If you respect human life, it's a baby.
If it's an inconvenience, it's a fetus.
-
And I can say that someone who eats vegetables "doesn't respect life"?
The important issue as I see it is whether a fetus has any level of sentience. This may be the case in later stages, but I do not see how this can be the case earlier on, so I disagree with the idea that all abortion is wrong, or comparable to murder.
-
mdwh2, I believe you missed the operative word there. :-)
-
@ Wolfe
"...An individual commits a anus crime and is allowed to live..."
--------------------------------------------------------
What is 'a anus crime?'
Did you mean that, or did you mean heinous?
-
Many thanks for the replies guys (and gals) :-)
-
I'm with X-ray on this one:
What's a "anus crime"? Is it something committed after a vindaloo?
-
X-ray wrote:
@ Wolfe
"...An individual commits a anus crime and is allowed to live..."
--------------------------------------------------------
What is 'a anus crime?'
An A$$hole doing something he shouldn't !
-
@Wolfe
:lol:
-
X-ray wrote:
@ Wolfe
"...An individual commits a anus crime and is allowed to live..."
--------------------------------------------------------
What is 'a anus crime?'
Did you mean that, or did you mean heinous?
"God hates fags" eh?
Send em to the chair for their henious anus crimes! ;-)
-
@KennyR
KennyR wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4219627.stm
Woah Man! I had no idea. :-o
After seeing what you've been through I can really understand why your pent up frustrations often result in vitriolic outbursts.
Did you receive counselling afterwards? Those (Bleeps)have a lot to answer for :pissed:
Err, just a little question if you don't mind. do they have broadband or dial-up on death row?
I jest! I jest! :-P
Oh yeah. about the topic.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent people are given the death penalty all the time but their lives have no significance. It isn't reported or even discussed. They are just brushed away as 'collateral damage'
Where's the justice in that :-?
-
Woohoo, first post here, chaps! :-D
The Death Penalty, if performed efficiently, would be a very beneficial aspect to society. Even if most punishments are little effect as crime deterrents (imo, fighting the cause of crime makes more sense than dealing with a crime itself), the Death Penalty still eliminates scum from the gene pool.
The problem is the complexity. Being logical, if you're going to kill someone, why have Death Row when they're going to die anyway? Just shoot them in the head and be done with it.
-
Now if one of the moderators would ban you from this forum, to keep this forum clean...
-
Come on Toy Boy, you can't ask for somebody to be banned because he has an opposite viewpoint
-
of course,
but I CAN when someone trolls with undebatable fascistic statements
-
You can ask all you want, but whether it will be acted upon is very doubtful :-).
-
I understand your feelings on this subject Speel, but everyone's entitled to an opinion.
My own viewpoint is that capital punishment is unjustifiable and flawed. I also believe that there is no "quick and efficient" way of executing someone as botched executions are more commonplace than you think, and that the law must be 100% correct before any permanant action (ie execution, mutilation, castration etc) is carried out.
However, if someone close to me was murdered in cold blood I know that my emotions would be somewhat different and I'd be baying for their blood or their tender parts on the chopping block.
Just trying to bring a little balance here folks...
-
No, tis the way he brings this controversial pov,
as if: "all your thoughts about a just system is {bleep}
just shoot and forget
discuss what you can, and no matter how many ppl in history have thought about this
they are as well as you are wrong anyway
Period"
It's his/her first post, wich is put here as an undebatable rock-solid "this is it and not otherwise" so called healthy pov
but the way I see it is that it's plain trolling.
-
I don't agree with the death penalty under any circumstances, although I can understand the demand for it in high-emotion cases.
@Kenny & X-Ray:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4219627.stm
The Kenny Richey case is an interesting one. I'm not convinced he's innocent.
Something I found really despicable was the way the tabloids reported on his case, coupled with the Luke Mitchell case.
On the same front page (I think it was 'The Sun') I saw two headlines.
The main one was something like "Inside the mind of a MONSTER" and was a story about 16yr old Luke Mitchell, who had been convicted the day before of murdering his girlfriend.
The second was something like "Justice at last" and was about Richey being freed from death row.
The thing that struck me was, neither of these cases is conclusive.
Mitchell could very well be innocent and Richey could very well be guilty.
Despite this, the tabloid trash are happy to paint one a hero and the other a monster.
Sad and disgusting.
The worst bit is the masses buy this pish and believe it.