FuguNabe wrote: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?
dirtybird wrote: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.
FuguNabe wrote: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.
Frank wrote:FuguNabe wrote: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.
FuguNabe wrote:So you're looking at moral point of view? Then tell me if their crime is/was morally correct?
FuguNabe wrote: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.
FuguNabe wrote: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.
FuguNabe wrote: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.
FuguNabe wrote: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 wrote: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.
Frank wrote:And I've already pointed out why prisons are a much more fiscally responsible choice between the two options.
Frank wrote: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'.
Frank wrote: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.
Frank wrote: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.
Frank wrote: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.
Ju Bei wrote:dirtybird wrote: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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved