Death penalty argument

I always wondered if we should inculed corruption. In the book "God Emperor of Dune" Leto II says that the highest crime of state is "corruption of, or an attempt to corrupt a government official." I tend to think that with the death penalty hanging over our government officials, we might get a little more productivity out of them.

Then again, I might be wrong. We might end up without a government at all.

Let's consult the Sybil.

~String

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ditto.

Pandaemoni, do you follow this manga: Q.E.D. by Shomei Shuryo?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just curious

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can't say I've heard of it, but I have never really followed any manga. (I'd probably find it interesting, it's just not something I've even taken the time to explore.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's a Japanese manga about a detective. The title is Q.E.D. =)

/sorry for being off-topic.

 

HAHAHAH point system is pretty funny, that almost makes it a game then... Horrible but true. George Carlin had it right, bring back the crusifictions, why. Entertainment. Whats more fun then watching sinners pay? shit, they could hang for weeks. Big joke, hows it hanging. Not so well for them I say, but do make an idiocracy of it. Killing is never meant to be clean or tidy, its the taking of human life and as such may be as discusting as ones imagination will allow.

My personal favorite is to start with the hand on a deli-slicer for those who rape young girls, like really young. Like my sisters. I would get so satanic on his ass he would ask for it quick and swift.

 

What have they done? Why should they suffer for his crimes? That is one of the most idiotic and primitive ideas that I have ever heard.

When a member of my family was sent to prison, I came face to face with murderers once a week for a year.
There was this one man in particular who was doing a life sentence for murdering his wife; I heard the story of his crime from his own lips (how I ended up talking to him is a long and mostly irrelevant story).
He told me that what he had done was disgusting, but there is a rage inside every ordinary person that the vast majority will never come face to face with. He talked of literally seeing red - a blur of confusion and emotion - when he found her in bed with his best friend. He claims he can hardly remember picking up the knife.

Now you can sit in front of your computer screens and deal out death and judgement as much as you like, but when you come face to face with these people - really see the person behind the crime - you will realise that not everything is as black and white as you would like to believe. Never in his life had he been a violent person; do you look so harshly on so-called 'crimes of passion'? Are you so above violence that you can put a blanket over them all.

And what about the mentally ill? Is it their fault - do they deserve the punishment they so often receive?

 

This is to make sure that no man would risk his family.

Do not cut your nose off to spite your face. He is his nose and the face will bleed if it is cut.

His family may be taken as payment to the souls of the lost or not at all. For whatever has come out of chaos is truly right. I have no clue, but if one kills a 100 there is surely a family feud happening as such both family's will eventually lose more.

 

You're not in a Shakespearean play, Cannon. You're trying to sound poetical and compromising reason because of it.

That no man would risk his family? Oh open your eyes, for God's sake! Not everyone feels for their family as you and I, neither do most families condone what their criminal member has done or is. If someone aims to kill someone (in Texas, say) then they have obviously not been deterred by the thought of intense pain and death that being convicted would bring. In short; reason and logic on the part of the murderers mind doesn't come into it.
Plus, what purpose would it all serve? I doubt the family of the victim would derive any satisfaction in the deaths of innocent people, especially in the name of their loved one.

Your logic is skewed.

 

No, just logic. I see that family's still feud and as such family loss happens. I am not for nor against punishing people who kill. We humans kill for such meaningless things, even with the occasion of a meaningful thing. As such, I would not want the family of a killer, but I know people who would. Humans want human to pay, as a eye for an eye people still want.

And as for my writing, I can nearly bet without a doubt that besides my spelling I am damn good at it.

 

I smell contradiction on the air, Cannon. Seen the error of your ways?

Please, find me an example; what have you 'seen? Of course there is extreme resentment but infinitely rarely (almost never) is the family killed in revenge for a member's crime. Besides, is that justice?

 

I don't believe in absolutes. I never said I did. There are, of course, exceptions.

My mother was killed by a drunk driver back in '86. I don't think that the drunk driver should have been executed.

~String

 

I'm sorry to hear that. But the drunk driving isn't a mental illness. The man knew fully what he was doing was wrong, yet he still did it. Therefore, the man deserves it.


And I think really what does it matter if the execution is cruel or inhumane.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MURDERERS AND RAPISTS WHO RAPE LITTLE KIDS HERE FOLKS

 

The execution of Saddam didn't exactly leave a pleasant taste in my mouth.

Just have him and others like him locked away somewhere.

Do away with all executions.

MAYBE I'd be for it if it could be proven to drastically cut homicide.

 

Locked away for life or executed, small difference.

Also it's a punishment, main goal is to punish not deter crime, although life in prison and prison itself doesn't deter crime

 

I disagree. The aim of prisons is to punish, deter and rehabilitate (to different degrees). Of course prison deters crime, its just there will always be some who are not deterred by it.
However, this is also true for the death penalty - in states and countries where is a part of the law terrible crimes are still committed... frequently. Does this mean it is totally ineffective at deterring crime?

Deserves punishment, or deserves death? It sounds to me as though it wasn't a wilful crime - just a stupid and terrible mistake that he failed to face up to and turn himself in for. We see the evil consequences of such tragedies and think evil must have caused them. Often crimes are committed by ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances.

You're turning these criminals into pantomime villains - I thought society had moved on from gathering en masse to cheer the hangman.

 

Not if the person is an organ donor.

But your organs are being used by other people, so at least society got something positive out of you...

 

Syzygys, what relevance does that have to the debate?

 

The justice system is not fair. Once someone is found guilty, no matter how strong the evidence against them, or their background, they are eligable for the toughest penalty. Innocent people go to death row.

A murder by an upper class citizen is different to a murder comitted by someone living in poverty. Less excusable. Perhaps if the society was a little more balanced, those without material posessions wouldn't have been motivated to violence.

And then there is the act of killing someone. I'm not talking about the criminal here, I'm talking about the death sentence. It's a morbid affair, and just because the person being excecuted has done something bad in their life does not make it better.

I thought the main goal IS deterant. Imagine a society without jails...

The second main goal is to remove criminals from society.

It does. But my point is that capital punishment doesn't appear to deter it more so.

 

You missed the previous debate where I advocated using the executed person's organs. Adds a lots of extra to the pro side...