Death Penalty

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

For or against the death penalty

For
58
46%
Against
41
33%
Conditional (explain)
26
21%
 
Total votes : 125

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:29 pm

Shi Tong, I know this is going to be only an instance and not an absolute..but are you saying that if a crime is caught on tape and witnessed by others there is still a large margin for error in declaring that for a certain this crime was comitted? Though I 100% agree with you that alot of the time people are sentenced with insuffiecient evidence, especially with DNA turning over convictions right and left, but I find the statement that you can't say with certainty in many situations that a crime was committed by a person an incorrect absolute.

Furthermore, I think the arguement of 'two wrongs do not make a right' should not be used in this debate. I never thought that the death penalty was used to 'right' a situation. It is just a form of punishment. Much like you argue that killing one person doesn't bring back the victim, the punishing of one isnt to right the wrong he committed but it is to punish that criminal. (I'm not positive I'm conveying this correctly, so bare with me) The court is not trying to correct the situation when they dish out judgements, they are simply trying to dish out law and order. If you break laws, you are subject to punishment. So I believe this arguement should be dismissed completely. That arguement should rather remain assigned to teaching fourth graders why pushing somone back or doing something wrong they've seen others do is wrong.

I don't mean this to be seen as a pro-death penalty post either, because I still am anti death penalty. :o
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4323
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Unread postby Kayzr » Fri Dec 15, 2006 8:57 pm

When there is no other option, yes, but every measure should be taken to determine whether or not someone deserves to die. If a criminal can be truly rehabilitated and become a beneficial human being, then the death penalty itself becomes a crime.
Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken.
For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.
Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.
Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.
For we are indeed his offspring.
Kayzr
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:27 pm
Location: Rome.

Unread postby Kong Wen » Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:14 am

Kayzr wrote:When there is no other option, yes, but every measure should be taken to determine whether or not someone deserves to die.

By what criteria? How do we decide who "deserves" death? Is it just if we don't know what else to do with them?
"We spread the time as we can, but in the end the world takes it all back."
— Roland Deschain, Wolves of the Calla
User avatar
Kong Wen
The Bronze Age of SoSZ
The Bronze Age of SoSZ
 
Posts: 11857
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 7:38 pm
Location: Canada

Unread postby Ranbir » Sat Dec 16, 2006 1:17 am

What else can you do with a serial killer that shows no remorse? Or a paedophile that believes he's doing nothing wrong?
"The imaginary number is a fine and wonderful resource of the human spirit, almost an amphibian between being and not being." - Gottfried Leibniz
Science snobbery.
User avatar
Ranbir
For Queen and Country
 
Posts: 8515
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2003 9:27 am
Location: Your heart. <3

Unread postby Kayzr » Sat Dec 16, 2006 5:28 am

Kong Wen wrote:By what criteria? How do we decide who "deserves" death? Is it just if we don't know what else to do with them?


Ideally, lawmakers, perhaps assisted by philosophers and theologians, would determine who suffers capital punishment.
Let us begin with Zeus, whom we mortals never leave unspoken.
For every street, every market-place is full of Zeus.
Even the sea and the harbour are full of this deity.
Everywhere everyone is indebted to Zeus.
For we are indeed his offspring.
Kayzr
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1126
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 10:27 pm
Location: Rome.

Unread postby Elitemsh » Sat Dec 16, 2006 12:31 pm

I believe in the death penalty, at least when the crime is of a particular heinous nature. In my view, serial killers, rapists etc should all be killed so long as the evidence is absolutely solid. Although I do not think burglary is a crime worth punishing with death. Naturally it depends on how serious the crime is, but I think the death penalty is worth enforcing.
''I've never fought for anyone but myself. I've got no purpose in life. No ultimate goal. It's only when I'm cheating death on the battlefield. The only time I feel truly alive.'' ~Solid Snake
User avatar
Elitemsh
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 4:14 pm
Location: Outer Heaven

Unread postby JamesD » Sat Dec 16, 2006 7:41 pm

Kong Wen wrote:
Kayzr wrote:When there is no other option, yes, but every measure should be taken to determine whether or not someone deserves to die.

By what criteria? How do we decide who "deserves" death? Is it just if we don't know what else to do with them?


Guys like Ted Budy or Jeffery Dahmer/.
JamesD
Langzhong
 
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 7:43 pm
Location: Fairfield, CT

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sun Dec 17, 2006 12:41 am

Kong Wen wrote:By what criteria? How do we decide who "deserves" death? Is it just if we don't know what else to do with them?


I believe this job is left up to the judge or jury, but limited only to crimes which involve murder.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4323
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Unread postby Kong Wen » Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:06 am

Ranbir wrote:What else can you do with a serial killer that shows no remorse? Or a paedophile that believes he's doing nothing wrong?

Was that directed at me? Because it doesn't answer my question.

JamesD wrote:Guys like Ted Budy or Jeffery Dahmer/.

That's a pretty vague answer/categorisation. How do we know when someone is exactly like one of those guys? Or do we just say "in general" and then play fast and loose?

Kayzr wrote:Ideally, lawmakers, perhaps assisted by philosophers and theologians, would determine who suffers capital punishment.

This is a good answer to my question, and I'm glad to see it coming from you since my question was, I think, in reply to one of your posts in the first place.

Still, I'd be interested in knowing who these lawmakers, philosophers, and theologians are whose burden it is to determine who deserves death. It's a giant responsibility, and if we're going to go about having state-sanctioned murders, then we should probably make sure there are some airtight criteria on the books. Should there just be some kind of democratic vote among all practising lawyers, philosophy professors, and ordained ministers of all state-recognised religions? Or is it just a select few who get to determine the exact law? Are these select few chosen by someone, or elected? Etc. Lots of big, interesting questions.
"We spread the time as we can, but in the end the world takes it all back."
— Roland Deschain, Wolves of the Calla
User avatar
Kong Wen
The Bronze Age of SoSZ
The Bronze Age of SoSZ
 
Posts: 11857
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 7:38 pm
Location: Canada

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Sun Dec 17, 2006 7:27 am

Kong Wen wrote:
Still, I'd be interested in knowing who these lawmakers, philosophers, and theologians are whose burden it is to determine who deserves death.



They are the elected members of our government mostly. People we place in charge to make decisions.

It's a giant responsibility, and if we're going to go about having state-sanctioned murders, then we should probably make sure there are some airtight criteria on the books. Should there just be some kind of democratic vote among all practising lawyers, philosophy professors, and ordained ministers of all state-recognised religions? Or is it just a select few who get to determine the exact law? Are these select few chosen by someone, or elected? Etc. Lots of big, interesting questions.



I actually think your making it alot more complicated than it actually is. When you commit a crime which involves some degree of murder (first degree, second etc), and depending on the state you reside in, you become eligible for the death penalty. I say eligible because its not a requisitie. I believe prosecutors have to seek the death penalty. The judge and jury then play their part by both convicting (or not) and dishing out a sentence.

Laws are already in place. Though the system has many issues it works. I find it funny saying all this because I don't currently support the death penalty, but I don't think this is a valid argueing point.

(This is all speaking from an American stand point by the way, outside of the U.S. I have little idea how legal systems work.)
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4323
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved