Death Penalty

[Ju Bei]

I believe that if the convicted is in no doubt one hundred percent guilty and are sentenced to death row, they should be executed post-haste. Some of the reasons that add to the costs of a death penalty are also due to things such as paying for said death row inmates sitting in jail for 10+ years along with paying the faculty and maintenance to maintain those prisoners.

I also think that a lot of the medium to major crimes should be punished harsher. When it comes to execution there are many more people who would shy away from doing a crime. However there are still all those who would do what they want anyways and well, they would deserve it.

[dirtybird]

A death for causing death(s). Death for serial rapist. Literal lifetime sentence for rapist. Death for illegal drug dealing on both small and large scale. I'm definately a believer of capital punishment (especially rifle range execution or hanging). Great way to get rid of idiots who do the wrong thing that moronic enough to get caught. IMO it would examplifies for people to think about their action a bit more and maintain control of the more wholesome remains of the population. Why not?

Why not make them serve a life sentence instead? In my opinion it is still wrong, what do you get when you execute another man/woman in jail, does this make one justified or something. i just think no one deserves to die.

[Ju Bei]

Why not make them serve a life sentence instead? In my opinion it is still wrong, what do you get when you execute another man/woman in jail, does this make one justified or something. i just think no one deserves to die.

Because they are still influential on the "outside world", especially those involved in drugs and gangs. A lot of those people still run their syndicates both inside and out of prisons, just because they are locked away doesn't mean they "disappear" from society and stop effecting it. Using capital punishment would most likely be a much better deterrent to crime.

[Frank]

Like I said before I don't think death penalty on criminals = murder. Murder afterall means the unlawful killing of someone. If the law itself use capital punishment then how can that be murder? It's justified by law. Crime and punishment. Please understand the word 'murder' before you even come into this argument.

I don't care by what euphemised name you call killing someone. Either way, by my standards, it is still murder, because it's the state flaunting draconian powers simply to kill someone.

Besides, you just said that the law of implementing the death penalty is justified due to the mere fact that it is a law. For legal basis, that's a genuine argument, but I'm attacking the death penalty by moral values solely, so, by my opinion, that argument does not stand well. If you could defend the moral merit of a law simply by that fact that it was enforced, then you can make an argument for slavery in that case by saying that it was a legally qualified practice a few centuries ago. But does that make it justified, or even morally right? Not a chance.

[Kong Wen]

The argument that the death penalty would be legal and thus not constitute murder is a bit misleading. For a long time, it was considered perfectly OK for a man to "rape" his wife, because she was his property. Of course, this forced sex wasn't "rape" because it was legal. That doesn't make it right. Making a reprehensible act legal doesn't make it any less reprehensibe. Whose responsibility is it to invest the government with the right to kill human beings?

[FuguNabe]

Like I said before I don't think death penalty on criminals = murder. Murder afterall means the unlawful killing of someone. If the law itself use capital punishment then how can that be murder? It's justified by law. Crime and punishment. Please understand the word 'murder' before you even come into this argument.

I don't care by what euphemised name you call killing someone. Either way, by my standards, it is still murder, because it's the state flaunting draconian powers simply to kill someone.

Besides, you just said that the law of implementing the death penalty is justified due to the mere fact that it is a law. For legal basis, that's a genuine argument, but I'm attacking the death penalty by moral values solely, so, by my opinion, that argument does not stand well. If you could defend the moral merit of a law simply by that fact that it was enforced, then you can make an argument for slavery in that case by saying that it was a legally qualified practice a few centuries ago. But does that make it justified, or even morally right? Not a chance.

So you're looking at moral point of view? Then tell me if their crime is/was morally correct? Law against crime should to be 'draconian' as you would put it to prevent future crimes if possible. It should examplify to the would be criminal the harsh consequences of crime. I am correct to say it's not murder if it's justified by the law considering the definition of murder. It stands well on the basis if there's a majority vote for it. If it doesn't then... oh well.

It's just my opinion that the justice system today has too many loopholes in favour of criminals getting back to what they do best. I can understand the court proceedings to allow rights of fair trial to all. However where found guilty beyond reasonable doubt there's the problem of sentencing. For many crimes sentences are too short. I could imagine criminals are laughing all the way till their release. It's halarious when they come out to prison and be talking like 'I've been school in the belly of the beast' and crap and that now they're harder than ever for the streets. This is the type of mentality through the damn prison so why on Earth would you want someone who's going to come out thinking they more hardcore than ever. They get out, the monitoring on these guys slacken then they are usually back to the same crap again. As for influencial criminals they can just be working from their new office from within the prison cell. So tell me it's worthwhile for the people working and living normal lives to be pretty much be paying for these. That's where my point of view stems where criminals with harsh crimes (murder(s), drug dealing, serial rape offender, leading crime syndicate, etc) deserves death sentences no questions asked upon being found guilty.

As for you bringing in slavery. That's another topic. I don't believe in that. Capital punishment and slavery are two different things. The topic here is asking everyone's opinion on capital punishment on criminals. My stand is that capital punishment would be great and I've merely expressed my thoughts on the matter over my few posts in this topic.

[Frank]

So you're looking at moral point of view? Then tell me if their crime is/was morally correct?

Obviously not, and I never said that. But why should the state reduce itself to the criminal's level by doing the exact same thing that they do by taking away a human's life? What could possibly be the benefits of it? Sure, it takes criminals off the streets, but prisons do that in a more humane way. And I've already pointed out why prisons are a much more fiscally responsible choice between the two options.

Law against crime should to be 'draconian' as you would put it to prevent future crimes if possible. It should examplify to the would be criminal the harsh consequences of crime.

How analytical of a person do you think these punishments are aimed towards that you would think they would have enough common sense to realize the consequences of their actions? Obviously, the lot of them have serious mental disorders, no doubt about it. But do you think that any punishment, any punishment at all, regardless of its severity, would be enough to deter them from taking part in their criminal acts if they would be so commited to do them in spite of the threat of death in the first place?

FYI, draconian is a word, so I don't know why you had to put it 'like this'.

I am correct to say it's not murder if it's justified by the law considering the definition of murder. It stands well on the basis if there's a majority vote for it. If it doesn't then... oh well.

I know that by a textbook definition of murder, then yes, you'd be right in saying that it's not considered "murder". However, there is no difference between the conclusion to a court-ordered death sentence and a murder on the streets, and that's the point that I was trying to make. Who cares what we call it? You can dress up the wording any way you'd like, but either way, they each result in the taking of a life.

This is the type of mentality through the damn prison so why on Earth would you want someone who's going to come out thinking they more hardcore than ever. They get out, the monitoring on these guys slacken then they are usually back to the same crap again. As for influencial criminals they can just be working from their new office from within the prison cell. So tell me it's worthwhile for the people working and living normal lives to be pretty much be paying for these. That's where my point of view stems where criminals with harsh crimes (murder(s), drug dealing, serial rape offender, leading crime syndicate, etc) deserves death sentences no questions asked upon being found guilty.

I'll tell you why people should be paying for the court cases for life-long prison sentences as soon as you tell me why people should be paying more for court cases for the use of capital punishment, despite the fact that each have just as much of a possibilty of finding the accused criminal innocent and each will potentially keep criminals off the streets permanently if they are found guilty.

By the way, I advocate life sentences for criminals that you feel should be put to death. That way it has the effect of death penalty without putting blood on the hands of the courts. I do not feel that they should be set back on the streets, although from your post I can tell you assumed that about me.

As for you bringing in slavery. That's another topic. I don't believe in that. Capital punishment and slavery are two different things. The topic here is asking everyone's opinion on capital punishment on criminals. My stand is that capital punishment would be great and I've merely expressed my thoughts on the matter over my few posts in this topic.

Of course it's another topic. I brought it up to create a blatant comparison between the two, and to show how past immoral deeds have been commited, yet were legally defended.

[FuguNabe]

Obviously not, and I never said that. But why should the state reduce itself to the criminal's level by doing the exact same thing that they do by taking away a human's life? What could possibly be the benefits of it? Sure, it takes criminals off the streets, but prisons do that in a more humane way.

In an ideal world nothing should be above well enforced and maintained laws. It's not reducing itself to anything if it commits to dishing capital punishment. It would likely just provides more order.

Humane way? Do they deserve to be treated in humane way? It's not like prison treats them any nicer but it would just be a waste of space. How many prison would they have to build to contain all the criminals sentenced for life.

And I've already pointed out why prisons are a much more fiscally responsible choice between the two options.

I've stated before I would rather pay more to ensure they're gone for good.

How analytical of a person do you think these punishments are aimed towards that you would think they would have enough common sense to realize the consequences of their actions? Obviously, the lot of them have serious mental disorders, no doubt about it. But do you think that any punishment, any punishment at all, regardless of its severity, would be enough to deter them from taking part in their criminal acts if they would be so commited to do them in spite of the threat of death in the first place?

FYI, draconian is a word, so I don't know why you had to put it 'like this'.

If they have no fear of death sentence to commit crime that shows that they are ready to face death at the hand of justice. Yes many have mental disorder so assuming that they can't survive in society and should either be sentenced to life in asylum or death sentence for being not fit to conformto society.

I know that by a textbook definition of murder, then yes, you'd be right in saying that it's not considered "murder". However, there is no difference between the conclusion to a court-ordered death sentence and a murder on the streets, and that's the point that I was trying to make. Who cares what we call it? You can dress up the wording any way you'd like, but either way, they each result in the taking of a life.

Again you are trying to make capital punishment and murder have the same literal meaning when it doesn't. You're probably the type refuse mercy killing even at a request right? If not I apologise for my assumption. Obviously I have to agree to disagree on this view. You have your opinion there and I have mine though I am following literal meaning.

I'll tell you why people should be paying for the court cases for life-long prison sentences as soon as you tell me why people should be paying more for court cases for the use of capital punishment, despite the fact that each have just as much of a possibilty of finding the accused criminal innocent and each will potentially keep criminals off the streets permanently if they are found guilty.

By the way, I advocate life sentences for criminals that you feel should be put to death. That way it has the effect of death penalty without putting blood on the hands of the courts. I do not feel that they should be set back on the streets, although from your post I can tell you assumed that about me.

So please tell me your why Frank? My why is so these garbage would be forever erased from this world. Literal life sentence is IMO providing a waste of living space for these criminals. Like I said before there are some criminals that still has sphere of influences outside the prison despite being locked up. This erases such possibilty altogether hence preventing further crime. Death sentences also examplifies and would likely have more of an effect to deter future crimes too as I've said many times over.

Of course it's another topic. I brought it up to create a blatant comparison between the two, and to show how past immoral deeds have been commited, yet were legally defended.

Then there's no need to bring it up. There's no comparison between the two because they are different topic.

[dirtybird]

Why not make them serve a life sentence instead? In my opinion it is still wrong, what do you get when you execute another man/woman in jail, does this make one justified or something. i just think no one deserves to die.

Because they are still influential on the "outside world", especially those involved in drugs and gangs. A lot of those people still run their syndicates both inside and out of prisons, just because they are locked away doesn't mean they "disappear" from society and stop effecting it. Using capital punishment would most likely be a much better deterrent to crime.

Isn't that what maximum security prisons are for? Maybe it's just me but i and the death penalty do not agree.

[Jason]

That because in America's eyes, there was still a whole group of arabs who hated America. Thats where the hate and paranoia came from. This is an isolated event, one kid, not acting for a group or a country.