its just. its only unjust if ur excuted when ur wrongfully accused. canada should bring bak the death penalty.

quote:

Originally posted by dj_moonshine its just. its only unjust if ur excuted when ur wrongfully accused. canada should bring bak the death penalty.

For heavens sake, how can you say 'its just' (Which should have been: It's just.), without providing any argument/evidence to support your case? NeoPhono at least provided some reasons and arguments to explain his position.

Further to that, you paint the death penalty as just, then immediatly afterwards state that if people are wrongfully acused then it's unjust. The fact of the matter is that this does occur when the death penalty is in place!

___________________
Currently Whoring:

• Space Tribe Vs Electric Universe - Rabbit Hole
  
• CPU - So It Begins
  
• Too Short & Mistah FAB - The Sideshow
  

quote:

Originally posted by anuneventrade So if the killer gets his life taken away as well, shouldn't the executioner's life be taken? He is, after all, taking another's life. It would just go round in circles until the entire planet kills itself.

i guess it really all boils down to the way the masses feel about death. if the death penalty is a means of punishment in a particular society, then that society doesn't care that the executioner is playing god. It isn't that the executioner has taken it upon himself to avenge the death of so-and-so, but he is bending to the will of the society which he is a part of.

When people talk about "playing God" I'm assuming they mean having the power over life and death. If that's the case however, I think we've been playing God for a long time. Every time someone has life saving surgery or takes blood pressure medicine to prolong their life, aren't we playing God? We are either extending their lives or saving them non-naturally, much like a biblical God could. I really don't think that there's an issue in American society with prolonging, saving or even taking lives (euthanasia may be an exception), especially when it comes to the death penalty. Now creating life (cloning, etc) now that's a different story...

I think the death penatly is essential, espeically in developing nations. When you lack the resources or citizenry co-operation to ensure the enforcement of laws, the best way to go about such enforcement is to increase the brutality of punishment to its violators. In USA society co-operates with the laws, so say stealing bread here is not rampant and the penalty for such theft is probably not even a criminal but civil issue. Lets say you live in Africa in the middle of a large drought, theft of bread is so widespread that the only way you can prevent such actions is by say cutting off the arms of those that have been caught doing so, if that doesn't work cut off both the arms... etc. Brutal enforcements of laws are essential in brutal societies. Now in the USA you have something else, you don't to a large extend have a brutal society - most of society co-operates with the law of their own will not of the consequences.

For instance, in large part society does not speed on the highways because it agrees for the law. I know myself, I don't speed to fast (above 15mph) as there is a big sucker of a fine waiting for me if I do, otherwise I would for one would speed - but this is not the point I am making, the point I am making is that if I did get caught speeding I would pay the fine. Why? I wouldn't if society agreed to drive fast, and when they got caught refused to pay the fines - if this was the case that 90% refused to pay their fines, the legal system would become so ineffectual in the enforcement of the speeding laws, they would have to put higher penalties persecuted against fewer people. For instance if they cut off the arm of anyone who drove above 15mph over the limit, I know I wouldn't even consider it. The stakes are too high.

Thats one point, not really related to death but still essential.

The second point is that there is an absolute punishment level - death. Of course if we were brutal it could be death by torture, but still that has a finite point. If for instance we as a society decide to punish someone who steals a loaf of bread with death by torture (the finite worse point of punishment) then if the person was going to steal bread, he might as well kill the shopkeeper, all the police coming to arrest him, massacre a few innocents, and rob a bank for millions while he is at it.... afterall what does he have to lose?

So for this we have to understand the level of punishment. For instance, if a man was to kill another, should he deserve death, or should we give him say 50 years. If we give him 50 years this might encourage him to surrender to the police thereby saving lives. If we give him death, he might as well put up a fight, no?

At what point do we put a limit to this? When a guy kills 2, 3, or perhaps he kills women, or children, or a policemen, what is the limit? If a person gets life in prison for stealing money or murdering 20 people, why not steal money and murder 20 people while your at it (assuming the guy is trying to escape)?

In this regard I believe punishment in American society regarding drug felonies is too severe.

Most murders don't put up a fight with police.. they are detected much later, rare is it that a murder is caught at the scene of the crime, for this reason in our society there is little negative effect to killing a murder.

Third, as Izzy has pointed having some criminals alive is certainly not a very good thing. Aside from the points he raised, I will raise another - they help "educated" other inmates about their expertise.
What if the man plans an escape? If life is the maximum constraint what does a prisoner have to lose from planning an escape where he kills gaurds in the process?
A further point to do this that these criminals might actually be released by a future generation. This could be both good and bad, if the criminal was wrongly accused this of course is a good thing. However if the society becomes hippified and decideds to release all rapist who have served for 50 years out, instead of their initial sentance of life, is this a good thing?

I myself am currently against the death penalty in some states where the judicial system is very incompetent such as Texas, in other states I have no problem allowing them to decide how they wish to address the issues of crime and punishment with in their state so long as they strive for justice.

This is just a few of my feelings on crime and punishment... It really is one of the harder issues to tackle upon, and then you have the whole argument and believe in two different essential types of punishments:
Should it be to reeducate, or should it be to deter?

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.