I also tend to think that there is a lot of underhand dealings going on when it comes to the death penalty. For instance, I believe that more black men get the death sentence than white men. I don't know if that is true or not, but I wouldn't be surprised.
There are more whites on death row than blacks - and more whites have been executed since 1976 as well. But that's just in raw numbers. Percentage wise, blacks receive it far more regularly. It's "interesting" to note that 15 whites have been executed for murdering blacks between 1976 and 1990 while 213 blacks have been executed for murdering whites.
Due to the appeals process here, it's actually more expensive to execute someone than to put them in prison for the rest of their lives.
I am aware of that.
I was just pointing out that without the death penalty but having still committed a violent crime. They are treated on the tax dollar better than old people in a nursing home who's only crime has been getting old and not being able to fend for themselves anymore. I know that they are supposed to rehabiltate in prison. But I just don't think that most people who commit violent crimes that are thought out can be helped to the point that they wouldn't do it again.
You've got to be kidding me. Even by Biblical accounts, Jesus begged God to stop his execution. He accepted it - but he certainly had problems with it as well.
I was just pointing out that without the death penalty but having still committed a violent crime. They are treated on the tax dollar better than old people in a nursing home who's only crime has been getting old and not being able to fend for themselves anymore. I know that they are supposed to rehabiltate in prison. But I just don't think that most people who commit violent crimes that are thought out can be helped to the point that they wouldn't do it again.
I'm not so sure they're treated better than old people in nursing homes, but I get what you're saying. To me, though, the nursing home issue is an entirely different problem and not really comparable.
As for rehabilitation, that's certainly not the issue with violent offenders who receive the death penalty. Were we to ban the death penalty, we'd simply leave these people in the hole for the rest of their lives. Once you hit a certain "level" in your crimes, there's no going back. They're out of society, in a maximum security prison (not at all like some kind of resort), and they'll never see the light of day again. I don't know what killing them adds to it, other than a sense of vengence on the part of the audience.
Hell, why not bring back the guillotine? As gory and offensive as it is to the audience, it's likely more humane to the prisoner.
I am against sending people to life in prison. At least when they are dead, tax payers aren't paying for them for the next 60 years. I took a criminology class my senior year in college and was amazed at the costs of housing them, especially once they get old and needy. Some of them I interviewed in prison said they would rather be dead anyway, so...............?
I know it wasn't exactly the example you used, but when you wrote "it's not fair to the victim" I also took it to mean that if we don't allow for the death penalty, it's not fair to those who want the person to die - many of whom would love to execute the individual themselves.
I see what you mean, but the justice system is strictly for the victim and the accused...no one else. So other people who would like to kill the accused shouldn't factor into deciding what is fair and what is not for the victim and the accused.
I agree. However, by everyone's standards it is immoral and unjust to execute an innocent person - and it's a punishment that can't be reversed. Jailing an innocent person, while certainly not good, can be. So, if you ask me, I think it's a perfectly good example of why it's immoral and unjust - it just so happens that it's also related to a flaw in the system.
Now, if you ask me, I say it's immoral and unjust all the time. Now I think we need to convince other people - and if they come to the same conclusion for different reasons, I'm O.K. with that.
I would say it's unjust to execute an innocent person, but like you said...it'd be unjust to punish an innocent person in any manner. But when we talk about jail time for stealing a car, we don't take into consideration the possibility of that person being innocent...and we shouldn't for the death penalty either. You can't reverse putting someone to death, but you also can't reverse putting them through years of prison either. Yeah, you can take them out of prison, but that's not exactly reversing what they've already gone through (which is no picnic obviously). So it's not so black & white....and that's exactly why we shouldn't focus on human error in the justice system when discussing punishments. We should focus on what is moral and just, and THEN discuss how we can take measures to prevent mistakes.
I'm not saying that the possibility of killing innocents isn't a valid reason for being against the death penalty, I'm just saying it shouldn't be the main reason. People seem to focus the debate on that a lot, and it just seems like the wrong way to think about the subject to me. I think the debate should focus on what is moral and just.
I am against sending people to life in prison. At least when they are dead, tax payers aren't paying for them for the next 60 years. I took a criminology class my senior year in college and was amazed at the costs of housing them, especially once they get old and needy. Some of them I interviewed in prison said they would rather be dead anyway, so...............?
It's generally believed that it is more expensive to execute someone than keep them in jail for 50 years. Because of the appeals. Of course if we just dropped the appeal process, it would be cheaper--though innocent people would more likely be killed.
***
I have been for the death penalty most of my life. I believe that it is appropriate to put to death the committors of certain crimes. HOWEVER, I am against it because I would rather let all the murderers live in prison in order to make sure that not even one innocent person is put to death. The system is imperfect. Rarely do innocent people get convicted of felanies, but it has happened and will happen again. If a convicted murderer turns out to be innocent after 10 years, I'd rather let him out of prison, than have him already be dead...
I cannot come up with a new sig till I get this egg off my face.
I'm not saying that the possibility of killing innocents isn't a valid reason for being against the death penalty, I'm just saying it shouldn't be the main reason. People seem to focus the debate on that a lot, and it just seems like the wrong way to think about the subject to me. I think the debate should focus on what is moral and just.
You're saying that we need to focus on whether or not capital punishment is moral. I'm giving an example of why it isn't. You're speaking broadly; I'm bringing up details. I don't see where the discrepancy is.
I mean, if you ask someone if they think the death penalty is moral, he or she will answer "yes" or "no." What's the immediate follow up question?
You're saying that we need to focus on whether or not capital punishment is moral. I'm giving an example of why it isn't. You're speaking broadly; I'm bringing up details. I don't see where the discrepancy is.
I mean, if you ask someone if they think the death penalty is moral, he or she will answer "yes" or "no." What's the immediate follow up question?
"Why?"
Yeah, I know you're just giving an example of why it isn't. There's no discrepency. The person I originally responded to seemed to focus on that one example as do many people. And I'm just saying I think that's the wrong thing to focus on when talking about the death penalty, that's all.
Yeah, I know you're just giving an example of why it isn't. There's no discrepency. The person I originally responded to seemed to focus on that one example as do many people. And I'm just saying I think that's the wrong thing to focus on when talking about the death penalty, that's all.
Yeah, that person was me. I could sit down and write a thousand words on why I think the death penalty is wrong based on my own moral compass. The reason I didn't is because everybody has a different moral compass, and some people (many of them good and decent people) have no qualms about capital punishment. We could spend all day here arguing back and forth about morals and get nowhere.
But by talking about practicalities, based on actual evidence, I believe it is still possible to make an effective argument against the death penalty whilst leaving out the morals. The key points being that it is not an effective deterrent (or not more so then other suitable punishments), and that you are unable to release anyone who has been later exonerated, if you fried them 15 years earlier.
I get what you are saying about the fact that a sentence doesn't take into account any possible doubt that the charged may be innocent, and that is the way it should be. But that is for the judge handing down the sentence. We outside of the judical system can still look at a punishment and, factoring in the possible execution of innocents, suggest that the punishment be changed so justice is still served and there is no chance of executing innocents.
I'm not saying that morals don't have a role to play in arguing for and against the death penalty. I just think it is harder to change a person's mind by saying that your moral judgement is better then theirs, and I would prefer to do it by presenting other information.
You've got to be kidding me. Even by Biblical accounts, Jesus begged God to stop his execution. He accepted it - but he certainly had problems with it as well.
have you ever even read the bible?> Jesus, by NO biblical account, begged for it to be stopped.
And its sick for you to say people are getting their rocks off, there's a big diff between "getting your rocks off" and being satisfied with an evil person no longer being on our planet.
have you ever even read the bible?> Jesus, by NO biblical account, begged for it to be stopped.
And its sick for you to say people are getting their rocks off, there's a big diff between "getting your rocks off" and being satisfied with an evil person no longer being on our planet.
I ask what's the point of the death penalty and miller replied:
I want to see a murderer suffer the pain of death.
That's not exactly 'being satisfied with an evil person being gone'. He actually wants to see someone suffer pain.
I want to see a murderer suffer the pain of death.
i'd rather see them live, and be tortured with the guilt
i believe in life sentences, and by which i mean until they die a slow and painful death in a cold dark cell
No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it.
Albert Einstein
i see no reason to think that anyone is 100% guilty or 100% innocent. but i do think that the idea that killing someone who committed murder is going to solve anything is 100% stupid.
I'm agnostic, and I'm not a supporter of the death penalty (actually, I'm quite indifferent) but it does seem like a very Christian way of doing things.
I'm agnostic, and I'm not a supporter of the death penalty (actually, I'm quite indifferent) but it does seem like a very Christian way of doing things.
Kill em all and let god sort em out.
i find it impossible to define "Christian". it means so many different things to so many different people.
I am 100% against capital punbishment for the following reasons:
I believe that it is morally wrong to accept state killing of criminals in a society where killing is morally unacceptable....I think it tends to send the incorrect message and secondly I believe that a long life in prison is a much more difficult fate for those convicted of something heinous than a quick "cop-out" state sponsored murder.....
A state should practice and show morality than to go the route of capital punishment which to me shows the immoral reality of the state....should practice what your preach...."thou shall not kill".....for some nations built upon huge religious prinicples to see capital punishment still practised dictates a very hypocritcal philosphy to the masses.....
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
0
81
Needing a ride to Forest Hills and a ounce of weed. Please inquire within. Thanks. Or not. Posts: 58,276
Comments
But not in his words?
naděje umírá poslední
I am aware of that.
I was just pointing out that without the death penalty but having still committed a violent crime. They are treated on the tax dollar better than old people in a nursing home who's only crime has been getting old and not being able to fend for themselves anymore. I know that they are supposed to rehabiltate in prison. But I just don't think that most people who commit violent crimes that are thought out can be helped to the point that they wouldn't do it again.
As for rehabilitation, that's certainly not the issue with violent offenders who receive the death penalty. Were we to ban the death penalty, we'd simply leave these people in the hole for the rest of their lives. Once you hit a certain "level" in your crimes, there's no going back. They're out of society, in a maximum security prison (not at all like some kind of resort), and they'll never see the light of day again. I don't know what killing them adds to it, other than a sense of vengence on the part of the audience.
Hell, why not bring back the guillotine? As gory and offensive as it is to the audience, it's likely more humane to the prisoner.
I see what you mean, but the justice system is strictly for the victim and the accused...no one else. So other people who would like to kill the accused shouldn't factor into deciding what is fair and what is not for the victim and the accused.
I would say it's unjust to execute an innocent person, but like you said...it'd be unjust to punish an innocent person in any manner. But when we talk about jail time for stealing a car, we don't take into consideration the possibility of that person being innocent...and we shouldn't for the death penalty either. You can't reverse putting someone to death, but you also can't reverse putting them through years of prison either. Yeah, you can take them out of prison, but that's not exactly reversing what they've already gone through (which is no picnic obviously). So it's not so black & white....and that's exactly why we shouldn't focus on human error in the justice system when discussing punishments. We should focus on what is moral and just, and THEN discuss how we can take measures to prevent mistakes.
I'm not saying that the possibility of killing innocents isn't a valid reason for being against the death penalty, I'm just saying it shouldn't be the main reason. People seem to focus the debate on that a lot, and it just seems like the wrong way to think about the subject to me. I think the debate should focus on what is moral and just.
It's generally believed that it is more expensive to execute someone than keep them in jail for 50 years. Because of the appeals. Of course if we just dropped the appeal process, it would be cheaper--though innocent people would more likely be killed.
***
I have been for the death penalty most of my life. I believe that it is appropriate to put to death the committors of certain crimes. HOWEVER, I am against it because I would rather let all the murderers live in prison in order to make sure that not even one innocent person is put to death. The system is imperfect. Rarely do innocent people get convicted of felanies, but it has happened and will happen again. If a convicted murderer turns out to be innocent after 10 years, I'd rather let him out of prison, than have him already be dead...
I mean, if you ask someone if they think the death penalty is moral, he or she will answer "yes" or "no." What's the immediate follow up question?
"Why?"
He was a political enemy of Rome. That's what happens to political enemies in a totalitarian state.
the other foot in the gutter
sweet smell that they adore
I think I'd rather smother
-The Replacements-
So it would be like doing them a favour?
naděje umírá poslední
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Yeah, that person was me. I could sit down and write a thousand words on why I think the death penalty is wrong based on my own moral compass. The reason I didn't is because everybody has a different moral compass, and some people (many of them good and decent people) have no qualms about capital punishment. We could spend all day here arguing back and forth about morals and get nowhere.
But by talking about practicalities, based on actual evidence, I believe it is still possible to make an effective argument against the death penalty whilst leaving out the morals. The key points being that it is not an effective deterrent (or not more so then other suitable punishments), and that you are unable to release anyone who has been later exonerated, if you fried them 15 years earlier.
I get what you are saying about the fact that a sentence doesn't take into account any possible doubt that the charged may be innocent, and that is the way it should be. But that is for the judge handing down the sentence. We outside of the judical system can still look at a punishment and, factoring in the possible execution of innocents, suggest that the punishment be changed so justice is still served and there is no chance of executing innocents.
I'm not saying that morals don't have a role to play in arguing for and against the death penalty. I just think it is harder to change a person's mind by saying that your moral judgement is better then theirs, and I would prefer to do it by presenting other information.
have you ever even read the bible?> Jesus, by NO biblical account, begged for it to be stopped.
And its sick for you to say people are getting their rocks off, there's a big diff between "getting your rocks off" and being satisfied with an evil person no longer being on our planet.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
I ask what's the point of the death penalty and miller replied:
That's not exactly 'being satisfied with an evil person being gone'. He actually wants to see someone suffer pain.
naděje umírá poslední
I'm curious. If Mississippi decided that they wanted to draw and quarter their death row inmates, would you have a problem with that?
The fact that innocent people have been put to death doesn't bother you - all for the sake of revenge or "justice"?
How does this make us any better than the murderers?
I want to see a murderer suffer the pain of sitting in a prison cell away from his family in a little gray room for the rest of his life.
I'm no religious expert, but "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?"
i'd rather see them live, and be tortured with the guilt
i believe in life sentences, and by which i mean until they die a slow and painful death in a cold dark cell
Albert Einstein
Kill em all and let god sort em out.
i find it impossible to define "Christian". it means so many different things to so many different people.
I believe that it is morally wrong to accept state killing of criminals in a society where killing is morally unacceptable....I think it tends to send the incorrect message and secondly I believe that a long life in prison is a much more difficult fate for those convicted of something heinous than a quick "cop-out" state sponsored murder.....
A state should practice and show morality than to go the route of capital punishment which to me shows the immoral reality of the state....should practice what your preach...."thou shall not kill".....for some nations built upon huge religious prinicples to see capital punishment still practised dictates a very hypocritcal philosphy to the masses.....
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01 ... ginia?lite