The death penalty

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 30 Nov 2004 20:21

"An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind" - Martin Luther King Junior

Because the deer hunting topic was along way off topic and forum...

Because our justice systems are far from infallible i feel that we should not impose sentances that are irrevocable.

What's your opinion?

carl winslow · Post by **carl winslow** » 01 Dec 2004 12:15

why do they bother wiping your arm with alchol before giving you a lethal injection? they dont want you to get a last minue infection from the needle?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 01 Dec 2004 19:07

I've seen that quote credited to Ghandi.

I'm opposed to the death penalty on moral reasons. I don't care about how much it costs or if the legal system makes mistakes. Even if executing people made money and the legal system never misconvicted people - I would still be opposed. I am opposed because I think it is wrong to kill people.

Frenzal · Post by **Frenzal** » 01 Dec 2004 22:45

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/An_eye_for_an_eye - MLKJnr,

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quote ... 07039.html - An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind - Mohandis Ghandi.

hacksterbator · Post by **hacksterbator** » 01 Dec 2004 23:19

i think the eye for an eye thought is pretty stupid. consider a tripple homicide. you can only sentence the murderer to death once. that still leaves 2 eyes to be poked... but who's?
think about it...

no, YOU think about it.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 02 Dec 2004 00:18

And what happens if two people take one persons eye?

Do they lose half an eye each? That would be unfair since they'd actually be losing a whole eye each! Or do they lose one between the two of them? Who decides which one loses an eye? And doesn't that mean that one will go unpunished?

Wait? Am I trying to suggest that the bible should make sense?

Argh - I'm a silly billy

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 02 Dec 2004 01:55

There are certain times where I think that the death penalty is appropriate.

intentionally mass murdering innocents
crimes against humanity
being an asshole

Well.. only two of those are serious. Let me justify the serious ones.

mass murdering: Going and attacking an unprepared, defenseless person is weak and cowardly. doing it multiple times is exponentially worse. Killing in vain is not something we are supposed to do. However, I suppose that using the death penalty would be hypocritical...
I see people who kill the innocents intentionally as wastes of flesh. in this case, they deserve the eye for an eye thing.

crimes against humanity: Trying to kill an entire race, religion, or section of people, going into unjust wars, and I'm sure there are a couple more examples of things that go under here. These people deserve to be put into agony equal to the severity of their crimes...

Pardon the babbling... I'm tired...

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 02 Dec 2004 03:03

I completely disagree.

People don't do things for no reason. They commit crimes like that because they have a different view of what is acceptable and are probably sick in the head. We should show compassion for all mentally ill people - regardless of what they do. I strongly believe that people don't do things for no reason. Sometimes it is very hard to find out what the reason is.

Killing these people achieves nothing. It doesn't deter people from commiting similar crimes. I can't believe that people sit around and say - I think I'll kill 500 people today. Oh wait I don't want to get the death penalty - I'll play tetris instead. It doesn't help to understand anything. All it does is pander to the people who desire seeing another human being suffer because they suffered.

I find it sick that people feel good about seeing somebody else suffer.

You talk about crimes against humanity - but the most basic rule of the universal decleration of human rights - which is the only internationally accepted list of human rights - is the right to life. Killing people is blatently in disregard of this and it completely undermines any attempts to say that people should respect human rights.

Moxie · Post by **Moxie** » 02 Dec 2004 09:00

I would think that sitting in prison for the rest of my life thinking about my horrible crimes against humanity would be a much worse punishment than death. I don't get how if you were really in the mindset of punishing people, why don't you punish them by making them live with what they've done instead of giving them a shortcut around anything that they would have to endure over the 30+ or so years they would be in prison? If they were found guilty enough to kill them, they would be guilty enough that officials could keep them in prison for life.

Death is easy for the person. At that point, how can you argue that you want justice? When you kill them, you're not punishing them, you're releasing them.
_________________
Emily Kulczyk

"As a well-spent day brings happy sleep, so life well used brings happy death."

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 02 Dec 2004 11:59

Jeremy wrote:You talk about crimes against humanity - but the most basic rule of the universal decleration of human rights - which is the only internationally accepted list of human rights - is the right to life. Killing people is blatently in disregard of this and it completely undermines any attempts to say that people should respect human rights.

This is true. Usually the people who commit such attrocities against mankind aren't afraid of death anyways, so it's pointless. Now that I have a clear and more awake mind, I see your point perfectly. I think that, if I may paraphrase what you said, it's a desire for revenge. It can also be said that you are caught up in the moment. The desire for revenge is so great you want the blood of another.

Hypothetical: What if the insane person (murderd X people intentionally) has no hope of recovery. After many evaluations and attempts, they are still the same, and says they would do it again if they had a chance. What would happen here? Keep them locked up and continue trying? Lock them up and ignore them? Keep them under survalience? Or would killing them be a viable option?

I ask that because if they escaped somehow, they would threaten the lives of many others. Try to help the one or try to keep the many safe?

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 02 Dec 2004 18:24

That's an interesting question. I would say keep trying because I don't like the idea of ever giving up on a human. But I also think it is very unlikely that they would escape. In my state since Australia became a country no prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment or something to that degree have ever escaped.

I also think that when you make exceptions like "nobody should be killed unless..." - you are starting the slippery slide to allowing the death penalty. I think in society it is the responsibility of society to keep people safe. If they are unwell they should be kept safe from themselves - ie. locked up. Killing somebody is obviously not keeping them safe. Nor is letting them escape - that's failing not only anybody who is hurt in someway from the escape - but it's really failing the escapee as well - and you aren't keeping them safe.

C-Fan · Post by **C-Fan** » 02 Dec 2004 19:10

My sister is a forensic scientist who specializes in DNA analysis, and she`s got loads of stories of cases where DNA is clearing people who were on deathrow/life imprisonment. This alone should make people oppose the death penalty, since recent science has shown how flawed so many death-convictions have been.

It`s also interesting to look at the racial statistics for inmates on deathrow. Black and hispanics make up an overwhelming majority of people on death row, but do you really think that blacks and hispanics commit an overwhelming majority of crimes that carry the death penalty? Don`t answer this if your avatar is Lenny from the Simpsons.

MegaFighter_X · Post by **MegaFighter_X** » 03 Dec 2004 14:49

Well said Jeremy.

Ken - rethorical question, right?

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 03 Dec 2004 15:26

C-Fan wrote: do you really think that blacks and hispanics commit an overwhelming majority of crimes that carry the death penalty?

Depends. If the world was fair and equal, I would say no. However, I don't believe the world to be fair and equal. I can see a concentration of blacks and hispanics in an environment which necessitates the commitance of crimes, which would lead to a bias of more blacks and latinos on death row. If things were fair and equal, it would be reasonable to assume, that nobody would voluntarilly congregate in an area of higher crime. So, i will hypothesize that latinos and blacks are in these environments against their will, and under stress do to such placement. Thus we do see a larger number of crimes committed by blacks and latinos. This doesn't mean that blacks and latinos are more inclined to crime, but would rather suggest they have been placed into an environment which leads to a higher crime rate, and the world is not fair and equal. i would guess that the group with the smallest number of people on death row per person of the same race in the population has the power to create the circumstances which keep others in high crimes environments.

blackcrown · Post by **blackcrown** » 03 Dec 2004 15:49

Tsiangkun wrote: i would guess that the group with the smallest number of people on death row per person of the same race in the population has the power to create the circumstances which keep others in high crimes environments.

Fucking Eskimo's

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article ... =5&did=184

Eric

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 03 Dec 2004 15:55

Wait? Am I trying to suggest that the bible should make sense?

I don't know if this is what you meant, but the Bible had nothing to do with "an eye for an eye" which was first established in Hamurabi's code in present day Iraq I believe.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 03 Dec 2004 16:12

I'm pretty sure it's in the bible as well - Exodus 21:24.

But lets face it - Christianity is built on the religions that came before it. Most of the stories are very similar to previous religions - even Jesus' resurection was seen in other religions before it Jesus was even born.

BainbridgeShred · Post by **BainbridgeShred** » 03 Dec 2004 17:28

Exodus really doesn't apply to Christianity

sPinko-Mania · Post by **sPinko-Mania** » 03 Dec 2004 18:50

^^Haha, so blatent.

I am practically opposed to the death penalty for reasons Ken explained. Letting someone free 10 years after their life sentence started really sucks, but it's better than going 'damn, guess we shouldn't of off'd him then'.

Morally...I dunno, although I have thought about it at length. I don't think I'd feel much if any sympathy or guilt if someone who had raped and killed one (or more) of my family members or friends was put to death. I think if their fate was in my hands I would probably rather let them sit in jail for an extended period of time and 'forgive' them - whatever that means. My morals (or lack thereof

) would not conflict if others would not rather be so lenient.

[quote=carl winslow]why do they bother wiping your arm with alchol before giving you a lethal injection? they dont want you to get a last minue infection from the needle?[/quote]
Probably just proceedure although if some part of the operation is botched and becomes delayed, and in that time a prisoner is found to be not guilty, but ends up dying in custody of the state through an infection the state caused, then it would be homocide or something.

Jeremy · Post by **Jeremy** » 05 Dec 2004 03:16

jeremy wrote:Wait? Am I trying to suggest that the bible should make sense?

BainbridgeShred wrote:Exodus really doesn't apply to Christianity

Exodus might not really apply to Christianity - but last time I looked it was still in the bible.