This question is for anyone that has given thought to criminals and those involved with our prison system. If we could actually make money by televising executions would this be morally unjust? What about the fact we could profit off the deaths and put this cash back into the prisons, hopefully to make them more secure or safe. Would you accept a channel specifically for this? Would you picket against such a thing? Where do you stand and why?

Executions are wrong.

Publics are even worse.

I don't think the public should necessarily view executions, but I think criminals should be REQUIRED to watch them!

Baron Max

Not only are they moral, they are praiseworthy.

All criminals sentenced to execution ought to be publically executed, naked, through scourging/caning unto death.

Not only are they moral, they are praiseworthy.

All criminals sentenced to execution ought to be publically executed, naked, through scourging/caning unto death.That makes you like the Taliban, Iran's fundies and Saddam. Odd how the most self righteous are most similar to those they condemn most.

That makes you like the Taliban, Iran's fundies and Saddam. Odd how the most self righteous are most similar to those they condemn most.
Even the Taliban is right sometimes. And execution is the only just punishment for murder. Anything else is a slap on the wrist.

Public executons aren't any worse than private ones.

heavy poll. heavvvy.

Wrong, but not true that only crazies would watch.

Public executions were family entertainment in the middle ages.

James R.:

And would be awesome entertainment today!

Genji:

As Madanthonywayne said, the Taliban can be right on one or two things and not be exonerated for everything else.

And would be awesome entertainment today!

Maybe they could rent the football stadiums and have gladitorial battles between the prisoners?! Wow, the tv sports media would jump on that like flies on shit, huh?

Baron Max

Publics are even worse.

No, that is incorrect logic. Here is the correct one:

1. If executions are wrong
AND
2. If public showing of people's suffering is wrong.
AND
3. 2 wrongs make a right
THEN
4. Public executions are RIGHT!

Prince_James:

You enjoy watching the deaths of other people?

James R.:

Of innocent people? Certainly not. I find that revolting. However, I find the death of evil men to be quite wonderful to see. The satisfaction of justice in action.

Baron Max:

It'd fix social security with its funds, that's for sure.

No, that is incorrect logic. Here is the correct one:

1. If executions are wrong
AND
2. If public showing of people's suffering is wrong.
AND
3. 2 wrongs make a right
THEN
4. Public executions are RIGHT!

Marvelous. You outdid yourself there.:)

However, I find the death of evil men to be quite wonderful to see.

How religious of you.

How religious of you.

Huh? So you like evil men? You want to keep them within the midst of society? Why?

Baron Max

James R.:

Only if that religion is Thugee Kali worship. Most religions frown on the good stuff.

Baron Max:

Good question.

Huh? So you like evil men? You want to keep them within the midst of society? Why?

I don't believe in the religious concept of "evil" or "acts of Satan" or whatever.

Maybe they could rent the football stadiums and have gladitorial battles between the prisoners?! Wow, the tv sports media would jump on that like flies on shit, huh?

Baron Max

That would help the economy. Especially if the prisoners were really underpaid.

I'd say if a criminal is given a choice between execution and life in a prison, it is a no brainer what he/she would choose.

Therein lies the answer - the better deterrent will have the better effect of curtailing crime or the temptation for it.

All indications bear testimony to the fact that in societies where you could be executed publicly for a crime, there is less crime.

It doesn't matter what your political or humanitarian views may be - the INTENT being curtailing crime, executions score heavily over other forms of punishment.

I'd say if a criminal is given a choice between execution and life in a prison, it is a no brainer what he/she would choose.

Life in prison, I assume.

Therein lies the answer - the better deterrent will have the better effect of curtailing crime or the temptation for it.

All the evidence suggests that the death penalty has no greater deterrent value than life imprisonment.

The thing is, criminals all think they won't be caught for their crimes... until they are.

All indications bear testimony to the fact that in societies where you could be executed publicly for a crime, there is less crime.

In such societies, measures of crime are generally poorer. Less recorded crime isn't the same thing as less crime.

It doesn't matter what your political or humanitarian views may be - the INTENT being curtailing crime, executions score heavily over other forms of punishment.

No, they don't.

All the evidence suggests that the death penalty has no greater deterrent value than life imprisonment.

No, James! Think about it ...a "life imprisonment" does NOT mean that they'll spend their entire lives in prison! It means that they'll get released if they're "good boys" while in prison for a few years.

Thus, not only do we have new criminals coming along, we now RELEASE the old criminals back into society ...with a very high rate of repeat crimes in evidence. Thus, now we have MORE criminals, not less ......and it's due to not gettin' rid of the bastards when we had the chance!

The thing is, criminals all think they won't be caught for their crimes... until they are.

Yeah, exactly! And yet you want to release the fuckers right back out into society even after they're proven to be fuckin' criminals! Amazing!

Baron Max

People focus!!

The question is the public nature of the execution, not the execution itself.

This topic kind of relates to the whiny-pussy generation. 100 years ago kids were watching hangings, today we can't show it because what? People can't take reality?

I say a murderer kicking his last on the rope in the 10 o'clock news is a better deterrent than anthing else. Well, breaking on the wheel also could work...

What about showing them in theaters before movies.

This poll is incomplete! I can't vote!

This poll is incomplete! I can't vote!

What options would you add?

James R.:

You accept no evil, then? Nothing is immoral? Or wrong?

James R.: You accept no evil, then? Nothing is immoral? Or wrong?

It's always easier to make foolish blanket statements than it is to back them up with any kind of logic or reasoning.

"All violence is bad!" ...yet I'd be willing to bet that he eats meat, which was a cow violently killed and butchered. And my best guess is that he kills fire ants and mosquitos and other annoying bugs.

Baron Max

What options would you add?

See post #2...

See post #2...

I see. That's why I said publics are even worse. Maybe there should be another options, it's wrong and showing to public is worse AND it's wrong publics and are no worse

Maybe they could rent the football stadiums and have gladitorial battles between the prisoners?! Wow, the tv sports media would jump on that like flies on shit, huh?

Baron Max
The only reason we don't have those things now is that special effects allow us to satisfy our bloodlust without anyone really dying.

This topic kind of relates to the whiny-pussy generation. 100 years ago kids were watching hangings, today we can't show it because what? People can't take reality?

I say a murderer kicking his last on the rope in the 10 o'clock news is a better deterrent than anthing else. Well, breaking on the wheel also could work...Nowadays kids can dismember their opponents in quite realistic video games. They can see people being subjected to every kind of brutality on TV, the movies, etc.

I don't think public executions would be any worse and would serve the social good of serving as a greater deterent to crime.

Some people just deserve to die.

However, I oppose the death penalty, for a very simple reason. I don't trust a jury of 12 idiots, along with a judge, to make the correct judgement. Especially since our court system is adversarial, which means that the aim is to 'beat' the other party, NOT necessarily to find the truth.
Innocent men (and women, such as Lindy Chamberlain) have been found guilty of a heinous crime, only to be exonerated at a later date.

It doesn't make any different if it's public or private. If it was happening in the street, then I'd say it's wrong. People need to be able to go about their every day lives without seeing somebody being executed. If it's televised and access is prohibited in the same way porno channels are, then hey ho let's go.

No, James! Think about it ...a "life imprisonment" does NOT mean that they'll spend their entire lives in prison! It means that they'll get released if they're "good boys" while in prison for a few years.

Sounds like a good thing to do - releasing the reformed criminals.


This topic kind of relates to the whiny-pussy generation. 100 years ago kids were watching hangings, today we can't show it because what? People can't take reality?

Because it's barbaric, and we want a civilised society these days.

I say a murderer kicking his last on the rope in the 10 o'clock news is a better deterrent than anthing else. Well, breaking on the wheel also could work...

As I mentioned above, all the evidence shows that it's deterrent value is negligible, if it has any deterrent value at all.

You accept no evil, then? Nothing is immoral? Or wrong?

Read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote.

It's always easier to make foolish blanket statements than it is to back them up with any kind of logic or reasoning.

Something you are very familiar with.

Because it's barbaric, and we want a civilised society these days.

I dunno. People eat shit and worms on reality shows for entertainment, the government starts illegal conquering wars, I don't see much civilization achieved...

Because it's barbaric, and we want a civilised society these days.

Why is a public execution uncivilised?

No offence but... aren't their a lot of people dying in movies and such doesn't that count as public executions?

No, as that is fake.

James R.:

James R
Just this guy, you know? (11,499 posts)
Yesterday, 12:10 AM #20

“ Huh? So you like evil men? You want to keep them within the midst of society? Why? ”

I don't believe in the religious concept of "evil" or "acts of Satan" or whatever.

You claim that evil is a religious concept. As evil is a synonym of "wrong" and "immoral", this implies that you are an amoralist. Unelss you say only that "evil" is religious, whereas immorality and wrongness is somehow different?

No, as that is fake.

Their is a bit show and all and franckley that's the point isn't it. Their are many different ways to kill a person aftherall. Shooting someone in the head that's abouth to set of a bomb somewhere seems perfectlley acceptable in a public place but keeping someone in a cell for 10 years and then giving hem a sedative and a lethal injection seems somewhat stupid. If your really wanted to kill someone slowly it's better to lock him up in the basement and hit him with a hammer ones a couple of days and who does that latley

Orcot:

The show helps show the public that we all take law seriously.

James R.:

Of innocent people? Certainly not. I find that revolting. However, I find the death of evil men to be quite wonderful to see. The satisfaction of justice in action.

Baron Max:

It'd fix social security with its funds, that's for sure.Innocent or not, no one should enjoy seeing a man die, it's a murderers motive and you can't know or judge if he actually did it or not. (excluding Saddams case...)

And after all, he is a human that have wandered this earth like you have, seen the world like you have etc., we should feel sad that this man destroyed himself so utterly!

Cyperium:

I pity the waste of potential, but delight in the carnage.

The show helps show the public that we all take law seriously.

Yes, when you commit a crime in america you better make sure you do it in the District of Columbia. (Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin).

Still it's better then ending up in a organ shopping basket in China I gues.
Now that's a relevant quistion if you were dying because of organ failure and had tons of money, would you go to China to buy yourself to buy yourself a nice death convict with nice healthy organs aftherall worms are sutch a waist?

I would have no problem taking an organ from a executed man.

I would have no problem taking an organ from a executed man.
Actually their still alive to keep the organs fresh. It's a need little busniss

Their is offcourse also the crime sure they recieved the death penalty but really does tax falsifying really count as a reason to kill someone.

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-3-30/39868.html

Surely, they die when they are being cut open, don't they?

I mean, I hardly imagine that after being shot and immediatly cut into, that they are going to survive more than a few seconds.

But yes, China does have a policy of executing for rather low-level crimes. But hey, if it works for them, it works for them.

I mean, I hardly imagine that after being shot and immediatly cut into, that they are going to survive more than a few seconds.

I don't think anybody cares enough to find this out.

The point is that you proberly would enjoy a public execution a lot more if the criminal for example grinded your daughter then for example if the criminal was raped and therefore had to be stoned to death
doesn't it?

i feel every sophomore in high school should be required to watch 2 electric chair executions.
i've seen video of one and it was GHASTLY to say the least.

Orcot:

Certainly.