|
Death Penalty (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| trancechaos |
| i dont think anyone has should have the right to decide when a persons life should end, only god has the right and power to do that. no human should, if one human can decide that another should be killed then why is murder a crime? coz no matter which way you look at it its still murder |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancechaos
i dont think anyone has should have the right to decide when a persons life should end, only god has the right and power to do that. no human should, if one human can decide that another should be killed then why is murder a crime? coz no matter which way you look at it its still murder |
What if it is god's intention that they should die in that way?
agree with the none-god part tho =) |
|
|
| b4k-oz |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
What if it is god's intention that they should die in that way?
agree with the none-god part tho =) |
If it was god's intention for them to die....I highly doubt it would be in this way.
Make no mistake about it, if someone dies by the death penalty--> it is not the act of God but the act of a human who thinks he speaks for God. It's no different than the church of medieval times that carried on their cruisades...and the priests that stabbed others with a knife that resembled a cross....all in his perception of what God would have ordered...as if he had a private phone line with him??? The Church in those days were nuts but they learned that their way was wrong...too bad Judges that support Death lack the mentality to figure it out. |
|
|
| starsearcher |
Morgan Freeman's line from The Big Bounce -- "God is an imaginary friend for grownups" :stongue: :haha:
Do you really believe that God decides who dies and who doesnt? Come on...:rolleyes: |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by b4k-oz
If it was god's intention for them to die....I highly doubt it would be in this way. |
How do you know? do you have a private phone line with him? :haha:
| quote: | | Make no mistake about it, if someone dies by the death penalty--> it is not the act of God but the act of a human who thinks he speaks for God. It's no different than the church of medieval times that carried on their cruisades...and the priests that stabbed others with a knife that resembled a cross....all in his perception of what God would have ordered...as if he had a private phone line with him??? The Church in those days were nuts but they learned that their way was wrong...too bad Judges that support Death lack the mentality to figure it out. |
actually i agree with you, humans should never have "permission" to take another mans life. Just that i don't really agree with that god part... i guess argumention is unessairly cause we really look at it the same way, just that you look at it in the religios point of view...
just a question:
How much power does god have? he has all the powers right? then he should be able to make the outcome of a trial the way he want, or?
| quote: | Originally posted by starsearcher
"God is an imaginary friend for grownups" |
:toothless |
|
|
| starsearcher |
| You know all the terrorists freaks say that god told them to kill you...so I can see you stand there and be like "...oh well if god said it then sure go ahead..." :haha: :stongue: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
I have a few rebuttals to make but I also have several points to bring up which nobody has brought up yet. They're near the bottom, so anyone who's not interested in the flames can skip to the green text.
| quote: | Originally posted by b4k-oz
If you support the death penalty, then what you’re saying is…"Someone else just tell me what's right and wrong!" . . . Because, you see, it eliminates the need for me to think. . . |
Honestly buddy what the are you smoking? How can you logically say that anyone with a strong opinion is really just asking for an opinion to be given to them?
What's "right" and "wrong" is defined by our federal Criminal Code. The "wrong" things are called crime. The sentences for those crimes are COMPLETELY independent of whether or not those acts are defined as "wrong" or not. The ONLY logical conclusion to your reasoning is that we should not have a criminal code at all.
Some places do this. Mostly in 3rd-world countries. In these places, there is no formal sentence, but the victim's family is allowed to take "revenge", or the convict can willingly go to a safe haven with other convicts to take refuge. In most of the developed world this is considered a generally nutty, barbaric practice. It's even worse than the death penalty because an ordinary citizen is granted the right to kill.
You've brought up absolutely no factual points in your argument, just a macaronic mix of prejudicial language, moral relativism and just plain old moralizing. If you want to say, "I don't support the death penalty because I think it's morally wrong", that's fine, but don't try to shove your personal feelings down other people's throats.
As for wrongful convictions, you're flogging the same dead horse that people in this debate have already identified. We aren't talking about run-of-the-mill trials here, we're talking about dangerous offenders, where the conviction process is far more stringent.
The "database" you posted lists 58 cases of people wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. The important things to note are:
- These people weren't actually executed, since the author himself states that a formal pardon or release is part of the criteria.
- The case list dates as far back as 1820, and only a small minority of cases are dated later than the mid-20th century. Forensic science was practically nonexistent back then, especially in areas like DNA.
- MANY of the cases, if you bother to actually read them, involve dirty cops - and in this case I think we're severely neglecting the real problem here.
All in all you've posted not much more than a lot of rhetoric with one very weak piece of factual evidence, gathered mostly from books written before 1960.
Moving on:
| quote: | Originally posted by Carney
^^^^^life without parole.......they aint never getting out.... they prob wish they had a death sentence |
If your assumption is that they're going to die in jail anyway, what then is your basis for being against the death penalty? Frankly I think an execution is far more "humane" than tossing someone away to rot in a jail cell for the rest of their life.
I have a friend who's a defense lawyer and has had experience with some of these dangerous offenders, some directly and some indirectly. He says they're lost, they cry for help, they know something is wrong with them and they're desperate for any kind of therapy but the government and the courts won't give it to them. They just get tossed in a jail cell, as if that's supposed to "rehabilitate" them. Most of them know what happens to sex offenders in prison and would rather die than have to go through that. They aren't given a choice, though.
The general thinking among the legal and scientific communities is that no amount of therapy can fix these people. Let's consider the consequences of this statement. If it's not true, then why aren't they given intensive therapy? And if it is true, then what exactly are we accomplishing morally by keeping them around?
What people don't realize is that although we may simplify the issue to whether these people are "pure evil" or "just human beings like you and me", everybody misses out on the grey area, which is that these people are severely screwed up, know they're screwed up, and usually can't be treated. It's like they're stuck with an incurable disease. We're not being any more "humane" by keeping them locked up.
If you had an aging dog that was starting to forget it's "potty training", taking number-twos all over your house and vomiting everywhere, would you just lock it in a cage for the rest of its life to live in its own filth, occasionally opening the door to give it some dry food? Or would you put it to sleep? My family and I were faced with this decision a few years ago and we chose the latter. It was a miserable experience. I can't really remember how I handled it but most of the family was crying during and after the final goodbyes. I almost wish she'd died the classic cliché way of getting run over by a bus because then we wouldn't have been faced with that decision. Euthanasia is never easy and by no means indiscriminate, it's really very sad, but we knew we were doing the right thing and I still stand by that.
So why the hell am I talking about an ex-pet? Because all of the humanitarians don't seem to recognize that these people are sick. And when someone is severely and incurably sick - even forgetting about the fact that they're a danger to other people around them - you pull the plug on them. That's just the humane thing to do.
Of course a lot of those terminally ill people don't have the mental faculties to do it themselves or even make the decision themselves. Dangerous offenders might (it's debatable). Here's my proposition on the death penalty: let convicted offenders choose. Either life in prison without parole, or a private (not public) execution. I bet society will be unpleasantly surprised at how many of them choose the latter. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
The general thinking among the legal and scientific communities is that no amount of therapy can fix these people. Let's consider the consequences of this statement. If it's not true, then why aren't they given intensive therapy? And if it is true, then what exactly are we accomplishing morally by keeping them around? |
hmmm, if i understood that right, you cannot be sentenced to therapy? in sweden you can, many of the worst criminals are senteced to that here... which is like a mix of a prison and a hospital... that is very good imo. |
|
|
| TrueToTheCrew |
Bring the death penalty back.
No way should people like Benardo or Michael Briere be alive, especially on our dollar. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I have a few rebuttals to make but I also have several points to bring up which nobody has brought up yet. They're near the bottom, so anyone who's not interested in the flames can skip to the green text.
Honestly buddy what the are you smoking? How can you logically say that anyone with a strong opinion is really just asking for an opinion to be given to them?
What's "right" and "wrong" is defined by our federal Criminal Code. The "wrong" things are called crime. The sentences for those crimes are COMPLETELY independent of whether or not those acts are defined as "wrong" or not. The ONLY logical conclusion to your reasoning is that we should not have a criminal code at all. |
not quite...What's LEGAL and ILLEGAL is defined by the Criminal Code. There's a difference between legal/illegal and right/wrong. Right and wrong are moral terms, not legal ones.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Some places do this. Mostly in 3rd-world countries. In these places, there is no formal sentence, but the victim's family is allowed to take "revenge", or the convict can willingly go to a safe haven with other convicts to take refuge. In most of the developed world this is considered a generally nutty, barbaric practice. It's even worse than the death penalty because an ordinary citizen is granted the right to kill.
You've brought up absolutely no factual points in your argument, just a macaronic mix of prejudicial language, moral relativism and just plain old moralizing. If you want to say, "I don't support the death penalty because I think it's morally wrong", that's fine, but don't try to shove your personal feelings down other people's throats. |
the same can be said for supporters of the death penalty...in fact, your position is far weaker, by your own logic. You're saying "I support the death penalty" yet provide no logical argument for why it should be in place. Opponents say it's more costly, not a deterrent, and is simple vengeful (which is NOT what our legal system is based upon). So what's your arguement in support of capital punishment as being "better" than prison???
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
As for wrongful convictions, you're flogging the same dead horse that people in this debate have already identified. We aren't talking about run-of-the-mill trials here, we're talking about dangerous offenders, where the conviction process is far more stringent.
The "database" you posted lists 58 cases of people wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death. The important things to note are:
- These people weren't actually executed, since the author himself states that a formal pardon or release is part of the criteria.
- The case list dates as far back as 1820, and only a small minority of cases are dated later than the mid-20th century. Forensic science was practically nonexistent back then, especially in areas like DNA.
- MANY of the cases, if you bother to actually read them, involve dirty cops - and in this case I think we're severely neglecting the real problem here.
All in all you've posted not much more than a lot of rhetoric with one very weak piece of factual evidence, gathered mostly from books written before 1960.
Moving on:
If your assumption is that they're going to die in jail anyway, what then is your basis for being against the death penalty? Frankly I think an execution is far more "humane" than tossing someone away to rot in a jail cell for the rest of their life.
I have a friend who's a defense lawyer and has had experience with some of these dangerous offenders, some directly and some indirectly. He says they're lost, they cry for help, they know something is wrong with them and they're desperate for any kind of therapy but the government and the courts won't give it to them. They just get tossed in a jail cell, as if that's supposed to "rehabilitate" them. Most of them know what happens to sex offenders in prison and would rather die than have to go through that. They aren't given a choice, though. |
so...executing them is better than them being in jail with no treatment? That's clearly absurd. I think virtually everyone can agree that our system requires more rehabilitative resources...that prison terms ALONE are not productive (except for those who choose not to be reformed, or can't be, and simply need to be removed from society).
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
The general thinking among the legal and scientific communities is that no amount of therapy can fix these people. Let's consider the consequences of this statement. If it's not true, then why aren't they given intensive therapy? And if it is true, then what exactly are we accomplishing morally by keeping them around? |
point taken...but it does NOT logically follow that they ought to then be executed simply because there is no chance for their rehabilitation!
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
What people don't realize is that although we may simplify the issue to whether these people are "pure evil" or "just human beings like you and me", everybody misses out on the grey area, which is that these people are severely screwed up, know they're screwed up, and usually can't be treated. It's like they're stuck with an incurable disease. We're not being any more "humane" by keeping them locked up.
If you had an aging dog that was starting to forget it's "potty training", taking number-twos all over your house and vomiting everywhere, would you just lock it in a cage for the rest of its life to live in its own filth, occasionally opening the door to give it some dry food? Or would you put it to sleep? My family and I were faced with this decision a few years ago and we chose the latter. It was a miserable experience. I can't really remember how I handled it but most of the family was crying during and after the final goodbyes. I almost wish she'd died the classic cliché way of getting run over by a bus because then we wouldn't have been faced with that decision. Euthanasia is never easy and by no means indiscriminate, it's really very sad, but we knew we were doing the right thing and I still stand by that.
So why the hell am I talking about an ex-pet? Because all of the humanitarians don't seem to recognize that these people are sick. And when someone is severely and incurably sick - even forgetting about the fact that they're a danger to other people around them - you pull the plug on them. That's just the humane thing to do. |
I don't buy that analogy at all...a pet, or person for that matter, who's in fading health is not the same as a violent criminal.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Of course a lot of those terminally ill people don't have the mental faculties to do it themselves or even make the decision themselves. Dangerous offenders might (it's debatable). Here's my proposition on the death penalty: let convicted offenders choose. Either life in prison without parole, or a private (not public) execution. I bet society will be unpleasantly surprised at how many of them choose the latter. |
THAT is an interesting proposition...I'll definitely grant you that...allowing someone faced with life in prision, with no chance of parole and waiving any avenues to appeal, to choose whether or not to serve their sentence or be put to death is certainly worthy of debate. I'm not sure how many would choose execution though...but I guess that's impossible to measure...even polling people serving sentences wouldn't be accurate. It's one thing to say "yeah, I'd rather be put to death", but it's quite another to be faced with that reality. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by TrueToTheCrew
Bring the death penalty back.
No way should people like Benardo or Michael Briere be alive, especially on our dollar. |
but we'd likely be spending MORE to put them to death...how is that "better"? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
not quite...What's LEGAL and ILLEGAL is defined by the Criminal Code. There's a difference between legal/illegal and right/wrong. Right and wrong are moral terms, not legal ones.
the same can be said for supporters of the death penalty...in fact, your position is far weaker, by your own logic. You're saying "I support the death penalty" yet provide no logical argument for why it should be in place. Opponents say it's more costly, not a deterrent, and is simple vengeful (which is NOT what our legal system is based upon). So what's your arguement in support of capital punishment as being "better" than prison??? |
I don't understand what point you're trying to make - I hadn't made any argument or stated any position at that point. I simply explained why the person I quoted was not making any sense, and he wasn't.
You're assuming that I took apart his argument because I'm in favour of the death penalty but as you can see from my entire post, I'm clearly not unilaterally for the death penalty. I believe that anybody deemed unfit to reenter society should be allowed to choose their ultimate fate, so my views don't directly conflict with either side of the debate (I'm definitely a moderate on this one). So I didn't rebut his argument because it conflicts with my views, I rebutted it because it made no sense. :p
Think about it - claiming that supporting the death penalty is by definition letting someone else tell you what's right and wrong? There is absolutely no logic that we can break the "is" down into. There is simply no sensible way to link those ideas no matter how opposed to the death penalty you are. Sure, if you're against it, I'll hear you out - but what he posted was not a coherent argument for that political platform.
| quote: | | so...executing them is better than them being in jail with no treatment? That's clearly absurd. I think virtually everyone can agree that our system requires more rehabilitative resources...that prison terms ALONE are not productive (except for those who choose not to be reformed, or can't be, and simply need to be removed from society). |
I do not think it's "clearly" absurd or that "virtually everyone" agrees with your position. The position is simply based on a pacifist (I don't mean the term in a negative way) ideology of objecting to the taking of a human life, no matter what the circumstances are. But there are many - particularly, many convicts themselves or people who have come into contact with them - who feel that locking someone up for life essentially achieves the same result as executing them, only more slowly and painfully, and I understand quite clearly what they're getting at. Obviously they'd RATHER get proper treatment, and I think we as a society should definitely make an honest attempt with it, but let's not ignore the possibility that it may prove futile in all or most cases.
If you don't agree with that then that is fine, and you're entitled to your opinion, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it "absurd". It's actually quite logical unless, as I said before, one is unilaterally opposed to the taking of any human life. That's a fair position but to claim it as objective and/or universal would be fundamentally flawed.
| quote: | | point taken...but it does NOT logically follow that they ought to then be executed simply because there is no chance for their rehabilitation! |
It doesn't follow that a terminally ill person ought to be euthanized either, but several people feel that it is the right thing to do. You have to remember to consider that the alternative is either being locked up for life in horrible conditions, or, if they're really well-behaved in prison, constant surveillance and a label slapped on their foreheads. It's not a good life - Mark, think about which fate you would rather suffer. In fact, think about how you'd feel if you were somehow wrongly convicted and your appeal was denied in the supreme court - would you want to live the life of a convicted dangerous offender, as they live now, or would you rather take the quick and painless way out? I'm speaking honestly when I say that this choice would probably overwhelm my sense of self-preservation and I'd rather end it quickly.
| quote: | | I don't buy that analogy at all...a pet, or person for that matter, who's in fading health is not the same as a violent criminal. |
Your personal view on this is not in synch with those of many psychologists, lawyers, and convicts themselves. That's not to say it's patently false - but just because they aren't visibly physically ill doesn't mean they aren't sick. People can be mentally ill too - just look at schizophrenia, dementia, and a whole host of other disorders. They're considered insane - they have to take medication and be constantly treated - these people are sick too. Just understand that many sex offenders consider themselves to be sick so you shouldn't dismiss the analogy so easily and so readily. You don't have to agree with it, but at least give it some serious thought. There's probably a reason why the rehabilitation rates for dangerous offenders are so low compared to other criminals - they aren't playing with a full deck.
| quote: | | THAT is an interesting proposition...I'll definitely grant you that...allowing someone faced with life in prision, with no chance of parole and waiving any avenues to appeal, to choose whether or not to serve their sentence or be put to death is certainly worthy of debate. I'm not sure how many would choose execution though...but I guess that's impossible to measure...even polling people serving sentences wouldn't be accurate. It's one thing to say "yeah, I'd rather be put to death", but it's quite another to be faced with that reality. |
Glad you like it. Realistically I don't think the results of any polls would matter, since it wouldn't be forcing anything anyway, it would be giving them a choice. Even if nobody chose the chair or a lethal injection, I don't see the harm in leaving it open as an option.
As you can see, I'm not quite pro-death-penalty, I'm merely trying to expose some issues people don't fully understand. I've talked to people with firsthand experience - that doesn't make me an expert - but unless you've done extensive research on the subject, I can't accept that you really understand the mind of a violent or perverted criminal. Nobody here does, so we aren't really qualified to make any of these assessments. Consider what I said as a possibility though, whether you believe it's true or not. |
|
|
|
|
