I think it makes no sense because punishing murder by committing murder puts the punisher on the same level as the punished. It sends a VERY bad message, and is morally inept.
So what do we do with kidnappers who imprison their victims in basements or cages? Do we not lock them up? Of course we do, and no one would reasonably argue that the government was on the same level as the kidnapper.[/quote]
All things are not always equal (I know you realize that)
They are not always equal, I absolutely agree. This is why I believe that trying, convicting, sentencing, hearing all appeals, and then finally executing someone who murders a child does not put the government on the same level as the murderer.[/quote]
If we strap down a human and put a needle in their arm with societies backing we are worse.
Totally disagree. Are you guys actually serious?? You think that comparing jailing people for kidnapping and murdering people for murdering as equal issues is reasonable when talking about a modern justice system? Gimme a break.
You said (I'm paraphrasing) that executing a murderer places society on the same level as the murderer. He said (paraphrasing again) then why is it acceptable to imprison a kidnapper when it places society on the same level.
We weren't comparing kidnapping to murder at all. We were speaking to the point you made.
If we kill and are wrong...you can't bring them back...if they are imprisoned for life without possiblility of parole than we can let them go free. Or if a government wants to silence...and create a solid case..once those in power are removed maybe they can also be freed. Imprisonment to protect the public is rational...killing them is not. Big difference.
Now that is a strong point.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Totally disagree. Are you guys actually serious?? You think that comparing jailing people for kidnapping and murdering people for murdering as equal issues is reasonable when talking about a modern justice system? Gimme a break.
You said (I'm paraphrasing) that executing a murderer places society on the same level as the murderer. He said (paraphrasing again) then why is it acceptable to imprison a kidnapper when it places society on the same level.
We weren't comparing kidnapping to murder at all. We were speaking to the point you made.
If your referring to that POS in Ohio ... he's also using up a nice resource air ... he doesn't want to die thats why he accepted the plea ... once that state knew that they should have took him down hard ... really kidnapping 3 people and putting him through what he did deserve something more than a just a jail cell.
Again I disagree. I think it's pretty fucking easy to be dead. Living in prison forever is way harder.
I can't shake the feeling a human must go through if wrongly convicted and they are strapped to a gurney...sick.
Ah, well that's where I disagree. Murder is murder. Killing another human being is wrong unless it's in self-defense. Period.
Well, OK, but as we see all the time what is self defense is a huge grey area.
If the convicted is truly guilty then a sentence of death is not murder. When the system breaks down or is abused, then yes it can be. That is why these sentences should be rare and we should be working to fix the system.
How about hard labour for some of these creeps? or is that inhuman as well.
I definitely think that all prisoners should be made useful if possible... I think in those complete lock down places they think it's too dangerous to have them our and about doing labour.... But anyway, I think that having to stay locked in a tiny room 23 hours a day is way worse than getting out and moving around and doing some work, if it's revenge we're after. Daily labour seems like a better option to me, but only because I don't think that the corrections system should be about revenge.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Ah, well that's where I disagree. Murder is murder. Killing another human being is wrong unless it's in self-defense. Period.
Well, OK, but as we see all the time what is self defense is a huge grey area.
If the convicted is truly guilty then a sentence of death is not murder. When the system breaks down or is abused, then yes it can be. That is why these sentences should be rare and we should be working to fix the system.
I think that capital punishment is always murder. Not sure how one can call strapping someone down and killing them can be called anything else.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
We weren't comparing kidnapping to murder at all. We were speaking to the point you made.
I do understand what's going on here, but thanks. As I said, all things are not equal. That's why one is acceptable and one is not, and what is annoying is that both of you know this but are acting like it's a valid argument.
Hold on a second...
You made a statement that emphasized a point you made. Essentially you said the government would be wrong to murder a murderer: why sink to the level of the murderer?
Jimmy countered suggesting that in that vein you introduced, the same could be said for imprisoning a kidnapper: why sink to the level of the kidnapper?
They are not disjointed and they are more similar in train of thought than you are caring to admit or failing to see.
Ah, well that's where I disagree. Murder is murder. Killing another human being is wrong unless it's in self-defense. Period.
Well, OK, but as we see all the time what is self defense is a huge grey area.
If the convicted is truly guilty then a sentence of death is not murder. When the system breaks down or is abused, then yes it can be. That is why these sentences should be rare and we should be working to fix the system.
It will never be fixed....there will always be people wrongly convicted. So are you okay with a few innocents thrown in the mix?
If we strap down a human and put a needle in their arm with societies backing we are worse.
No. We're better. In the true 'eye for an eye' model... we'd be forced to do much worse to many. Our 'clinical' executions that serve as justice, remove the threat and offer peace to the survivors (among other things) are what separates us from those that have committed the most heinous of offences.
We weren't comparing kidnapping to murder at all. We were speaking to the point you made.
I do understand what's going on here, but thanks. As I said, all things are not equal. That's why one is acceptable and one is not, and what is annoying is that both of you know this but are acting like it's a valid argument.
Hold on a second...
You made a statement that emphasized a point you made. Essentially you said the government would be wrong to murder a murderer: why sink to the level of the murderer?
Jimmy countered suggesting that in that vein you introduced, the same could be said for imprisoning a kidnapper: why sink to the level of the kidnapper?
They are not disjointed and they are more similar in train of thought than you are caring to admit or failing to see.
I'm not failing to see anything. I fully understand what point you are trying to make. My issue is that it is completely irrelevant. I didn't say it wasn't deductively logical ... But this isn't an argument we're trying to work through in PHIL 101. We're discussing real life.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Ah, well that's where I disagree. Murder is murder. Killing another human being is wrong unless it's in self-defense. Period.
Well, OK, but as we see all the time what is self defense is a huge grey area.
If the convicted is truly guilty then a sentence of death is not murder. When the system breaks down or is abused, then yes it can be. That is why these sentences should be rare and we should be working to fix the system.
It will never be fixed....there will always be people wrongly convicted. So are you okay with a few innocents thrown in the mix?
And this is not directed at you as I don't know your feelings but in general seems those that hate the government and think they are inefficient have no problem with the government being in charge of who gets put to death.
Ah, well that's where I disagree. Murder is murder. Killing another human being is wrong unless it's in self-defense. Period.
Well, OK, but as we see all the time what is self defense is a huge grey area.
If the convicted is truly guilty then a sentence of death is not murder. When the system breaks down or is abused, then yes it can be. That is why these sentences should be rare and we should be working to fix the system.
It will never be fixed....there will always be people wrongly convicted. So are you okay with a few innocents thrown in the mix?
No, if it is used properly then that problem will cease. Being wrongly convicted and being sentenced to death are not the same thing. If there is even a shadow of doubt then the death penalty should not apply.
I'm not failing to see anything. I fully understand what point you are trying to make. My issue is that it is completely irrelevant. I didn't say it wasn't deductively logical ... But this isn't an argument we're trying to work through in PHIL 101. We're discussing real life.
So, in this particular case, you wish for your dramatic 'comparison' to stand to suit your purposes... but do not wish to accept it when someone uses a similar comparison to counter what you have said?
If we are discussing 'real life'... then why are you calling legal executions as a form of punishment for a crime 'murder'? And how does executing the rapist and murderer of a 6 month old infant 'sinking to his level'?
Well, OK, but as we see all the time what is self defense is a huge grey area.
If the convicted is truly guilty then a sentence of death is not murder. When the system breaks down or is abused, then yes it can be. That is why these sentences should be rare and we should be working to fix the system.
It will never be fixed....there will always be people wrongly convicted. So are you okay with a few innocents thrown in the mix?
No, if it is used properly then that problem will cease. Being wrongly convicted and being sentenced to death are not the same thing. If there is even a shadow of doubt then the death penalty should not apply.
They have been operating under the assumption that the have no doubt about those on death row or in prison for life, and currently assume that ... yet innocent people are still getting convicted once in a while.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I'm not failing to see anything. I fully understand what point you are trying to make. My issue is that it is completely irrelevant. I didn't say it wasn't deductively logical ... But this isn't an argument we're trying to work through in PHIL 101. We're discussing real life.
So, in this particular case, you wish for your dramatic 'comparison' to stand to suit your purposes... but do not wish to accept it when someone uses a similar comparison to counter what you have said?
If we are discussing 'real life'... then why are you calling legal executions as a form of punishment for a crime 'murder'? And how does executing the rapist and murderer of a 6 month old infant 'sinking to his level'?
Come on, man.
So you think murder was invented by the government, or what? Just because the government decides it's not breaking the law, it doesn't mean it's not murder. The government didn't invent the term. I think I've already explained myself on the rest.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
We weren't comparing kidnapping to murder at all. We were speaking to the point you made.
I do understand what's going on here, but thanks. As I said, all things are not equal. That's why one is acceptable and one is not, and what is annoying is that both of you know this but are acting like it's a valid argument.
Hold on a second...
You made a statement that emphasized a point you made. Essentially you said the government would be wrong to murder a murderer: why sink to the level of the murderer?
Jimmy countered suggesting that in that vein you introduced, the same could be said for imprisoning a kidnapper: why sink to the level of the kidnapper?
They are not disjointed and they are more similar in train of thought than you are caring to admit or failing to see.
Excellent point and as always well made. The parallels were there to see and some felt it necessary to be derisory to this plain as day logic.
And to the point that putting a needle in an arm of a monster makes us worse?? WORSE -??? That comment is so bizarrely poor I can't even start to work out the logic that brought it to being typed. Society doesn't seek to murder those people in a deranged way that they inflicted themselves - and that's the only way such events could be truely considered like for like.
Believe me - I'm anti DP. But some of the comments in the last few pages have just beggared belief
I do understand what's going on here, but thanks. As I said, all things are not equal. That's why one is acceptable and one is not, and what is annoying is that both of you know this but are acting like it's a valid argument.
Hold on a second...
You made a statement that emphasized a point you made. Essentially you said the government would be wrong to murder a murderer: why sink to the level of the murderer?
Jimmy countered suggesting that in that vein you introduced, the same could be said for imprisoning a kidnapper: why sink to the level of the kidnapper?
They are not disjointed and they are more similar in train of thought than you are caring to admit or failing to see.
Excellent point and as always well made. The parallels were there to see and some felt it necessary to be derisory to this plain as day logic.
And to the point that putting a needle in an arm of a monster makes us worse?? WORSE -??? That comment is so bizarrely poor I can't even start to work out the logic that brought it to being typed. Society doesn't seek to murder those people in a deranged way that they inflicted themselves - and that's the only way such events could be truely considered like for like.
Believe me - I'm anti DP. But some of the comments in the last few pages have just beggared belief
I still think it's a terrible point.
I NEVER said that thing about the government being worse, to be clear. I simply said that murder is murder. It's not more right when the government does it than when some private citizen does it.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
They have been operating under the assumption that the have no doubt about those on death row or in prison for life, and currently assume that ... yet innocent people are still getting convicted once in a while.
Agreed, but because states like Texas and Georgia cannot get their shit together does not mean that the shit cannot be gotten together. I would estimate that at least 80% of the time when the death penalty is currently used it should not be. Because the crime does not warrant it, or there is a smidge of doubt, etc. Those instances need to be eliminated. That does not mean that there are not guilty criminals deserving to die for their crimes.
Considering this discussion, it really also just seems a lot easier to not have the death penalty. Cheaper too, unless they get rid of the appeals process.... which is probably not a good idea. Even though there are some who consider the "cruel and unusual punishment" to be in that very process.... dragging it out for years and years is the cruel and unusual part, not the actual strapping them down and murdering them. Some think that it wouldn't be cruel and unusual if they only had one trial, then wham bam, a week later the needle is inserted.... I obviously do not agree with this line of thinking either.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Considering this discussion, it really also just seems a lot easier to not have the death penalty. Cheaper too, unless they get rid of the appeals process.... which is probably not a good idea. Even though there are some who consider the "cruel and unusual punishment" to be in that very process.... dragging it out for years and years is the cruel and unusual part, not the actual strapping them down and murdering them. Some think that it wouldn't be cruel and unusual if they only had one trial, then wham bam, a week later the needle is inserted.... I obviously do not agree with this line of thinking either.
When people bring up the idea that the DP gives the victims families a sense of closure or whatever, I always think of this... It is dragged out - way too much. I think it takes an average of like 20-25 years to execute...so these families of victims will have a constant reminder for 2-3 decades with appeals and shit. For this reason, I would think it doesnt give much solace. Personally, I'd either like to kill 'em myself, or forget about it as soon as possible if I was the victims family.
Considering this discussion, it really also just seems a lot easier to not have the death penalty. Cheaper too, unless they get rid of the appeals process.... which is probably not a good idea. Even though there are some who consider the "cruel and unusual punishment" to be in that very process.... dragging it out for years and years is the cruel and unusual part, not the actual strapping them down and murdering them. Some think that it wouldn't be cruel and unusual if they only had one trial, then wham bam, a week later the needle is inserted.... I obviously do not agree with this line of thinking either.
When people bring up the idea that the DP gives the victims families a sense of closure or whatever, I always think of this... It is dragged out - way too much. I think it takes an average of like 20-25 years to execute...so these families of victims will have a constant reminder for 2-3 decades with appeals and shit. For this reason, I would think it doesnt give much solace. Personally, I'd either like to kill 'em myself, or forget about it as soon as possible if I was the victims family.
That is one of the major arguments that the families of victims who oppose the death penalty make..... as well as the innocent families of the convicted criminals, who everyone seems to forget completely. When you kill a criminal, there is a still a family who never did anything wrong being traumatized in various ways.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
They have been operating under the assumption that the have no doubt about those on death row or in prison for life, and currently assume that ... yet innocent people are still getting convicted once in a while.
Operative term: once in a while.
There are currently 2.3 million people incarcerated in the United States.
Statistically speaking... in the last 23 years, there has been a 0.0008% chance that someone has been wrongfully convicted. Take into account the fact that forensics science has come light years and we will likely find that in the next quarter century, this number will be even lower.
With the aforementioned said, and without using statistics to back up my next claim... think of how many innocent people are murdered senselessly. If one was to suggest that the death penalty would have the deterrent effect that some claim it to have... and that at least one innocent person/child would be spared by this effect (a highly probable statistic)... the death penalty seems very legitimate to me as a deterrent, let alone an appropriate measure of justice for some cases that are highly callous in their nature.
I do understand what's going on here, but thanks. As I said, all things are not equal. That's why one is acceptable and one is not, and what is annoying is that both of you know this but are acting like it's a valid argument.
Hold on a second...
You made a statement that emphasized a point you made. Essentially you said the government would be wrong to murder a murderer: why sink to the level of the murderer?
Jimmy countered suggesting that in that vein you introduced, the same could be said for imprisoning a kidnapper: why sink to the level of the kidnapper?
They are not disjointed and they are more similar in train of thought than you are caring to admit or failing to see.
Excellent point and as always well made. The parallels were there to see and some felt it necessary to be derisory to this plain as day logic.
And to the point that putting a needle in an arm of a monster makes us worse?? WORSE -??? That comment is so bizarrely poor I can't even start to work out the logic that brought it to being typed. Society doesn't seek to murder those people in a deranged way that they inflicted themselves - and that's the only way such events could be truely considered like for like.
Believe me - I'm anti DP. But some of the comments in the last few pages have just beggared belief
They have been operating under the assumption that the have no doubt about those on death row or in prison for life, and currently assume that ... yet innocent people are still getting convicted once in a while.
Operative term: once in a while.
There are currently 2.3 million people incarcerated in the United States.
Statistically speaking... in the last 23 years, there has been a 0.0008% chance that someone has been wrongfully convicted. Take into account the fact that forensics science has come light years and we will likely find that in the next quarter century, this number will be even lower.
With the aforementioned said, and without using statistics to back up my next claim... think of how many innocent people are murdered senselessly. If one was to suggest that the death penalty would have the deterrent effect that some claim it to have... and that at least one innocent person/child would be spared by this effect (a highly probable statistic)... the death penalty seems very legitimate to me as a deterrent, let alone an appropriate measure of justice for some cases that are highly callous in their nature.
I honestly and truly think that one is too many.... and that besides my other stance about how the government shouldn't be killing people out of revenge in any case.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
You made a statement that emphasized a point you made. Essentially you said the government would be wrong to murder a murderer: why sink to the level of the murderer?
Jimmy countered suggesting that in that vein you introduced, the same could be said for imprisoning a kidnapper: why sink to the level of the kidnapper?
They are not disjointed and they are more similar in train of thought than you are caring to admit or failing to see.
it's a clever comparison, but in the end, one that doesn't hold any water at all. We are not sinking to the level of the kidnapper; in essence, we are making sure, at the very least, that no one else gets kidnapped. That is our duty to the rest of society.
Killing someone who can do no more harm to society is not necessary.
Incarceration is all that is necessary to keep the public safe, whether it be kidnapping or murder.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
You made a statement that emphasized a point you made. Essentially you said the government would be wrong to murder a murderer: why sink to the level of the murderer?
Jimmy countered suggesting that in that vein you introduced, the same could be said for imprisoning a kidnapper: why sink to the level of the kidnapper?
They are not disjointed and they are more similar in train of thought than you are caring to admit or failing to see.
it's a clever comparison, but in the end, one that doesn't hold any water at all. We are not sinking to the level of the kidnapper; in essence, we are making sure, at the very least, that no one else gets kidnapped. That is our duty to the rest of society.
Killing someone who can do no more harm to society is not necessary.
Incarceration is all that is necessary to keep the public safe, whether it be kidnapping or murder.
In many cases, executions could have prevented more harm to society so... to argue that it isn't 'necessary' isn't exactly true. Prison and time spent after a sentence or on parole offers murderers more chances to commit the acts we have supposedly safeguarded against.
So, as much as one could argue that the death penalty acts as a deterrent before a murder is committed... one could certainly state that it acts as a deterrent by permanently removing the homicidal maniac from future opportunity.
Sounds cold, but nobody places a gun to some guy's head and demands that they commit a murder. Don't wish to get executed? Then don't go and kill people. And if you simply cannot resist your homicidal urges... then you must be prepared to accept your fate. One shouldn't plead for mercy when they couldn't tender any themselves as they preyed on an innocent.
In many cases, executions could have prevented more harm to society so... to argue that it isn't 'necessary' isn't exactly true. Prison and time spent after a sentence or on parole offers murderers more chances to commit the acts we have supposedly safeguarded against.
So, as much as one could argue that the death penalty acts as a deterrent before a murder is committed... one could certainly state that it acts as a deterrent by permanently removing the homicidal maniac from future opportunity.
Sounds cold, but nobody places a gun to some guy's head and demands that they commit a murder. Don't wish to get executed? Then don't go and kill people. And if you simply cannot resist your homicidal urges... then you must be prepared to accept your fate. One shouldn't plead for mercy when they couldn't tender any themselves as they preyed on an innocent.
not one murder went uncommitted due to the death penalty. impossible to prove, but I think it just stands to reason. I can't possibly imagine someone WHO WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIME to change their mind due to the severity of the possible consequence. It just doesn't happen. It is a proven non-deterrent.
I don't believe a murderer should EVER get out of prison. Life is life. Life is not 25 years. I'm 39, and I ain't even half done, so life ain't 25 fucking years. You die in prison if you are a murderer. End of story.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Comments
So what do we do with kidnappers who imprison their victims in basements or cages? Do we not lock them up? Of course we do, and no one would reasonably argue that the government was on the same level as the kidnapper.[/quote]
All things are not always equal (I know you realize that)
They are not always equal, I absolutely agree. This is why I believe that trying, convicting, sentencing, hearing all appeals, and then finally executing someone who murders a child does not put the government on the same level as the murderer.[/quote]
If we strap down a human and put a needle in their arm with societies backing we are worse.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Well, OK, but as we see all the time what is self defense is a huge grey area.
If the convicted is truly guilty then a sentence of death is not murder. When the system breaks down or is abused, then yes it can be. That is why these sentences should be rare and we should be working to fix the system.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
http://youtu.be/_42qmKBSC3g
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Hold on a second...
You made a statement that emphasized a point you made. Essentially you said the government would be wrong to murder a murderer: why sink to the level of the murderer?
Jimmy countered suggesting that in that vein you introduced, the same could be said for imprisoning a kidnapper: why sink to the level of the kidnapper?
They are not disjointed and they are more similar in train of thought than you are caring to admit or failing to see.
No. We're better. In the true 'eye for an eye' model... we'd be forced to do much worse to many. Our 'clinical' executions that serve as justice, remove the threat and offer peace to the survivors (among other things) are what separates us from those that have committed the most heinous of offences.
No, if it is used properly then that problem will cease. Being wrongly convicted and being sentenced to death are not the same thing. If there is even a shadow of doubt then the death penalty should not apply.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
So, in this particular case, you wish for your dramatic 'comparison' to stand to suit your purposes... but do not wish to accept it when someone uses a similar comparison to counter what you have said?
If we are discussing 'real life'... then why are you calling legal executions as a form of punishment for a crime 'murder'? And how does executing the rapist and murderer of a 6 month old infant 'sinking to his level'?
Come on, man.
Excellent point and as always well made. The parallels were there to see and some felt it necessary to be derisory to this plain as day logic.
And to the point that putting a needle in an arm of a monster makes us worse?? WORSE -??? That comment is so bizarrely poor I can't even start to work out the logic that brought it to being typed. Society doesn't seek to murder those people in a deranged way that they inflicted themselves - and that's the only way such events could be truely considered like for like.
Believe me - I'm anti DP. But some of the comments in the last few pages have just beggared belief
I NEVER said that thing about the government being worse, to be clear. I simply said that murder is murder. It's not more right when the government does it than when some private citizen does it.
Agreed, but because states like Texas and Georgia cannot get their shit together does not mean that the shit cannot be gotten together. I would estimate that at least 80% of the time when the death penalty is currently used it should not be. Because the crime does not warrant it, or there is a smidge of doubt, etc. Those instances need to be eliminated. That does not mean that there are not guilty criminals deserving to die for their crimes.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
When people bring up the idea that the DP gives the victims families a sense of closure or whatever, I always think of this... It is dragged out - way too much. I think it takes an average of like 20-25 years to execute...so these families of victims will have a constant reminder for 2-3 decades with appeals and shit. For this reason, I would think it doesnt give much solace. Personally, I'd either like to kill 'em myself, or forget about it as soon as possible if I was the victims family.
Operative term: once in a while.
There are currently 2.3 million people incarcerated in the United States.
http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/wo ... ted-states
The number of people found to have been falsely incarcerated in the last 23 years is estimated at roughly 2,000.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/05 ... years?lite
Statistically speaking... in the last 23 years, there has been a 0.0008% chance that someone has been wrongfully convicted. Take into account the fact that forensics science has come light years and we will likely find that in the next quarter century, this number will be even lower.
With the aforementioned said, and without using statistics to back up my next claim... think of how many innocent people are murdered senselessly. If one was to suggest that the death penalty would have the deterrent effect that some claim it to have... and that at least one innocent person/child would be spared by this effect (a highly probable statistic)... the death penalty seems very legitimate to me as a deterrent, let alone an appropriate measure of justice for some cases that are highly callous in their nature.
Thanks for the help there, PD.
I think I needed it!
But it was made in the previous page and I'm struggling to comprehend such logic
it's a clever comparison, but in the end, one that doesn't hold any water at all. We are not sinking to the level of the kidnapper; in essence, we are making sure, at the very least, that no one else gets kidnapped. That is our duty to the rest of society.
Killing someone who can do no more harm to society is not necessary.
Incarceration is all that is necessary to keep the public safe, whether it be kidnapping or murder.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
In many cases, executions could have prevented more harm to society so... to argue that it isn't 'necessary' isn't exactly true. Prison and time spent after a sentence or on parole offers murderers more chances to commit the acts we have supposedly safeguarded against.
I offer this to verify what I say:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/29 ... t-wouldnt/
So, as much as one could argue that the death penalty acts as a deterrent before a murder is committed... one could certainly state that it acts as a deterrent by permanently removing the homicidal maniac from future opportunity.
Sounds cold, but nobody places a gun to some guy's head and demands that they commit a murder. Don't wish to get executed? Then don't go and kill people. And if you simply cannot resist your homicidal urges... then you must be prepared to accept your fate. One shouldn't plead for mercy when they couldn't tender any themselves as they preyed on an innocent.
not one murder went uncommitted due to the death penalty. impossible to prove, but I think it just stands to reason. I can't possibly imagine someone WHO WOULD HAVE ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIME to change their mind due to the severity of the possible consequence. It just doesn't happen. It is a proven non-deterrent.
I don't believe a murderer should EVER get out of prison. Life is life. Life is not 25 years. I'm 39, and I ain't even half done, so life ain't 25 fucking years. You die in prison if you are a murderer. End of story.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014