death penalty
- Thread starter vladimir
- 52 comments
- 1,331 views
- 3,425
Arwin who cares a rats ass what a murderers reasons are ? Why would understanding a killers feelings help his victims family more than seeing the killer put to death ?
I find it funny that you think a confessed killer could somehow be innocent . And the victims of crime do not become killers by letting the criminal justice system do its job . Thats very foolish for you to say and it wont help but hurt your attempt at an argument. You keep babbling about killing innocent criminals or innocent people, by accident. I keep talking about guilty criminals being brought to justice. now you tell me how thats a valid argument or your part ? lets talk about justice . If you take a life unjustly you forfiet your own. Whats wrong with that concept ? You seem to be able to make judgements for the victims of crime very easily. You can judge whats right for them better than they can ?
I find it funny that you think a confessed killer could somehow be innocent . And the victims of crime do not become killers by letting the criminal justice system do its job . Thats very foolish for you to say and it wont help but hurt your attempt at an argument. You keep babbling about killing innocent criminals or innocent people, by accident. I keep talking about guilty criminals being brought to justice. now you tell me how thats a valid argument or your part ? lets talk about justice . If you take a life unjustly you forfiet your own. Whats wrong with that concept ? You seem to be able to make judgements for the victims of crime very easily. You can judge whats right for them better than they can ?
- 2,093
ledhed
Relatives of the victim. They ask themselves "why" a few times per day for years. They ask God, they ask their friends, family, neighbours. Why not ask the person who can actually give the answer? It's not like (s)he's always very likely to give a very satisfying answer, but anything is more than nothing.
Two deaths were never better than one.
Saddam Hussein would have loved you as a citizen.
- 3,425
So now I should live in Iraq. Arwin cant believe someone could actually confess a crime BUT he believes the VICTIMS of the crime just need to understand why. So who is naive ?
Criminals do confess Arwin when given the chance for many reasons besides cattle prods to the balls. Sometime they are even caught with the murder weapon in thier bloody hands and with some witness 's still alive to testify. They get convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Why are two deaths not better than one ? I would rather see two dead murderers than one dead victim. Justice is a concept you should try to grasp.
Vlad ;
Criminals do confess Arwin when given the chance for many reasons besides cattle prods to the balls. Sometime they are even caught with the murder weapon in thier bloody hands and with some witness 's still alive to testify. They get convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. Why are two deaths not better than one ? I would rather see two dead murderers than one dead victim. Justice is a concept you should try to grasp.
Vlad ;
Its an easy one he gets charged with the crime he commited. By joining the society he is a member of he aggreed to follow the rules did he not ? He has to let the criminal justice system do its job. although if he knew Arwin was on the jury he may be more tempted to take justice into his own hands.
- 1,823
Arwin
What, are you taking a cue from Anderson now? "Oh no, I can't back up an argument... Call the mods!!"
So one is acceptable when not justified, but the second is not...Because it's (not) revenge?
What the hell is that supposed to be? A half-assed insult towards ledhed, or (more likely) America as a whole?
- 2,093
ledhed
I didn't say you should live in Iraq. But when we're discussing 'naive' I would like to know who's naive now to believe that all confessions are reliable.
Cattle prods or 72 hours of no sleep and constant interrogation - the point isn't that confessions are unreliable by default, but that they aren't all reliable. I don't have to repeat all the cases here of people on death row or even already executed that were thanks to some diligent students and new DNA technology proven not to be guilty after all?
But I don't have to prove that innocent people die of the death penalty. So the question still stands - is a relative's bloodlust (or the state's for that matter) worth convicting and executing innocent people for the most terrible crimes? My argument is that the benefits of the death penalty are questionable at best (I don't see any) and not worth even one single innocent person's life.
I'm sure you would then argue that the fear of the death penalty saves the lives of innocents as well. But so far I have yet to see evidence of that. And then there's the matter of showing society that killing is a bad thing by ... killing?
He has to let the criminal justice system do its job. although if he knew Arwin was on the jury he may be more tempted to take justice into his own hands.
Another nice discussion topic btw -> not every country has juries.
- 1,823
Arwin
Have you? What kind of stupid question of that? I'm starting to get sick of seeing "OMG RULE 8!!!!!!111111111" "RULE 6!!!!!1111ONEONE111", we all know the ****ing thing exists, shutup already. I almost wish I didn't suggest it get stickied now.
Picture this. A man kills a person, gets sentenced to 25 to life, gets paroled, kills again. Is that not a failure of the justice system?
- 2,760
Please leave me out of this. I have taken a step forward, why can't you do the same?Ghost C
Oh, and it's Anderton. Prime.
- 1,165
now i understand you even less...you say the death penalty should help the relatives of the victim to cope with the loss, you say death was the just punishment for a murder and you are for the death penalty, but the father is not allowed to do it by himself, wouldn't that be far more just than when the state would kill him?ledhedIts an easy one he gets charged with the crime he commited. By joining the society he is a member of he aggreed to follow the rules did he not ? He has to let the criminal justice system do its job. although if he knew Arwin was on the jury he may be more tempted to take justice into his own hands.
now imagine the father would logically and sane decide to do that, he even has time to think as he will do it in court, would he not himself get the capital punishment by your argumentation?
- 3,425
We live by rule of law correct ? we are supposed to let the police and the criminal justice system deal with criminals , is that not correct ? The death penalty is not solely to comfort the victims family , like any other penalty of law, its meant to benifit the whole of society. You are not allowed to be under the law only when it suits you, unless of course you are saddam Hussien or some other despot. I guess you think you should be allowed to chase down a burgular and when you catch him imprison him in your basement for a few years ?
- 1,165
no i don't think so. but neither do i think that the father should not be punished nor do i like the revenge argument that was brought up by yourself who said i should talk to the victim's relatives...ledhed
the society would benefit from a (real-lifetime) sentence even more because no more innocent people would be killed and you can hardly teach people that killing was wrong when the state itself kills.
- 3,425
I never brought up a revenge argument. I said Arwin should go comfort the relatives.
The death sentance is a penalty for commiting premeditated murder its not revenge.
Lets also not forget that the criminal chooses to commit his crime knowing that if he is caught it is possible he will get the death penalty. Its not a suprise. The same way a thief knows if he is caught he will be punished with imprisonment.
Maybe you can go online and talk to a death row inmate and ask him what he was thinking. "Why did you kill knowing you would get a death sentance ? " the answer (if you can find one that admits he's guilty online ) may help you .
The death sentance is a penalty for commiting premeditated murder its not revenge.
Lets also not forget that the criminal chooses to commit his crime knowing that if he is caught it is possible he will get the death penalty. Its not a suprise. The same way a thief knows if he is caught he will be punished with imprisonment.
Maybe you can go online and talk to a death row inmate and ask him what he was thinking. "Why did you kill knowing you would get a death sentance ? " the answer (if you can find one that admits he's guilty online ) may help you .
Danoff
Premium
- 34,108
- Mile High City
This is where you fundamentally misunderstand reality. You did it in a thread about Iraq and you do it here. To think that it is not possible for two deaths to be better than one is simply unbelievable. In fact, you wouldnt even be right if youd said no deaths is better than two. You have to understand the underlying situation. Human life cannot be the final total cost of any situation. That simply doesnt hold up.
Ill give you an example:
Two German soldier deaths during WWII is better than one US solider death during the same conflict.
Also, it makes zero sense to try to understand the motives of a killer. Murderers have exacted the harshest penalty on innocent people, and deserve the harshest civilized penalty society can deal.
People who are clinically insane should be committed. But people who are just really stupid or emotional or were abused or only somewhat crazy in other words people who had intent to kill deserve harsh penalties.
People who commit crimes in otherwords infringe the rights of others, deserve to have their rights taken away (at least temporarily). People who take the lives of others (intentionally) deserve to have theirs taken away (intentionally). Its called justice.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,108
- Mile High City
It does.
In many cases it is.
Its natural. Not so much a virtue or vice.
Certainly not. Caring for your neighbor is an excellent thing to do. Just dont force other people to care for their neighbors. It would be immoral to infringe on their freedom.
War can be justified and necessary.
In some cases, the death penalty truly is a wonderful thing.
- 1,153
Wow, you guys are having a pretty good fight over this!
I think the main argument that Arwin was bringing up is that some convictions are unsafe...there is evidence after the fact, that they are not guilty. Confessions can be extracted by many means, not all of them reliable.
Personally, as stated before, I would love to see some of these murderers die, but the sentence to the relatives is for a lifetime. No matter what the punishment is, it will never bring back their loved ones.
I was for the death penalty but now I am thinking that a lifetime of incarceration, in a cold stone cell for life, is worse than death.
@vladimir: on the case of the revenge killing, there is a recent UK case where the son took a cricket bat, to the back of the head of his mothers alleged rapist. The man died of his wounds and the son was sentenced to 3 years. If you take the law into your own hands, no matter how right you feel you are, you are still accountable for your own actions. This young man, may have acted in his best interests, but he has ruined his own life. His mother fully backs his actions, but in law there is no excuse.
Details of cricket bat case
Edit: 3 years may seem like a short time, but it was because his age at the time was 16.
I think the main argument that Arwin was bringing up is that some convictions are unsafe...there is evidence after the fact, that they are not guilty. Confessions can be extracted by many means, not all of them reliable.
Personally, as stated before, I would love to see some of these murderers die, but the sentence to the relatives is for a lifetime. No matter what the punishment is, it will never bring back their loved ones.
I was for the death penalty but now I am thinking that a lifetime of incarceration, in a cold stone cell for life, is worse than death.
@vladimir: on the case of the revenge killing, there is a recent UK case where the son took a cricket bat, to the back of the head of his mothers alleged rapist. The man died of his wounds and the son was sentenced to 3 years. If you take the law into your own hands, no matter how right you feel you are, you are still accountable for your own actions. This young man, may have acted in his best interests, but he has ruined his own life. His mother fully backs his actions, but in law there is no excuse.
Details of cricket bat case
Edit: 3 years may seem like a short time, but it was because his age at the time was 16.
- 3,425
Violent crimes and murder are part of the cruelest, most inhuman and disparaging crimes that exist and they violate the victims right to life.
These are a few important primary causes to why each civilized state governed by law should impose the severest judgment - death penalty - on such heinous crimes.
In itself the death penalty is not something desired. But this awful punishment is forced by a sometimes ice-cold brutal reality. And the reality is that the door back to paradise is closed. Therefore each country is continuously forced to fight an uneven fight against all forms of the destructive. The capital punishment should be viewed as one instrument among many in the fight for a more righteous and better world.
There are some words that often return when we defend the death penalty: justice and human dignity. And these words also constitute a foundation for that which is called democracy and civilization. These two realitys can also be regarded as two bearing pillars in the defence of the capital punishment.
Justice is a highly regarded word in society and in politics, but within the judicial system and that which concerns crime and punishment, justice has, both as a word and as a conception, ended up existing in the shadows. But we want to lift forth this truth in the light, since justice should be the foundation within the legal system. When the death penalty is discussed the aspect of justice should be allowed in the foreground first and foremost.
With human dignity we point the spotlight on the victims of crimes. Respect walks hand in hand with human dignity. Man has an inviolable dignity and therefore deserves the highest respect. Human dignity and respect, not foremost for the one who hurts his fellowman but for the victims of crimes and his relatives, is something that should be brought forth considerably more than today, and especially in connection with the death penalty. But the prerequisite for that is that sympathy and solidarity with the victim should increase in society. In order to rightly value the death penalty it is necessary to have empathy and understanding for all the victims and their relatives.
( cut and paste from a link ).
http://w1.155.telia.com/~u15525046/ny_sida_3.htm
These are a few important primary causes to why each civilized state governed by law should impose the severest judgment - death penalty - on such heinous crimes.
In itself the death penalty is not something desired. But this awful punishment is forced by a sometimes ice-cold brutal reality. And the reality is that the door back to paradise is closed. Therefore each country is continuously forced to fight an uneven fight against all forms of the destructive. The capital punishment should be viewed as one instrument among many in the fight for a more righteous and better world.
There are some words that often return when we defend the death penalty: justice and human dignity. And these words also constitute a foundation for that which is called democracy and civilization. These two realitys can also be regarded as two bearing pillars in the defence of the capital punishment.
Justice is a highly regarded word in society and in politics, but within the judicial system and that which concerns crime and punishment, justice has, both as a word and as a conception, ended up existing in the shadows. But we want to lift forth this truth in the light, since justice should be the foundation within the legal system. When the death penalty is discussed the aspect of justice should be allowed in the foreground first and foremost.
With human dignity we point the spotlight on the victims of crimes. Respect walks hand in hand with human dignity. Man has an inviolable dignity and therefore deserves the highest respect. Human dignity and respect, not foremost for the one who hurts his fellowman but for the victims of crimes and his relatives, is something that should be brought forth considerably more than today, and especially in connection with the death penalty. But the prerequisite for that is that sympathy and solidarity with the victim should increase in society. In order to rightly value the death penalty it is necessary to have empathy and understanding for all the victims and their relatives.
( cut and paste from a link ).
http://w1.155.telia.com/~u15525046/ny_sida_3.htm
- 2,093
ledhed
Well I think it's safe to say that this is the core of our disagreement. I do not think justice is served best by the death penalty, because it is irrevocable when a mistake was made, I refuse to see justice and revenge as equals, and I don't see how the death penalty adds to human dignity. Especially this line:
"In order to rightly value the death penalty it is necessary to have empathy and understanding for all the victims and their relatives."
... is something I objected to before - neither victim nor the relatives are better off with the killer dead, not to mention how they would feel if they sought the death penalty for someone who turns out to be innocent afterwards. Anger and revenge are bad counsellors and just keep the wounds alive. Just look at the Israel/Palestine issue, the ETA/Basque issue, or many many others for examples of just how bad it is to include anger and revenge in your definition of justice.
(I like how you posted a Swedish based link though, nice touch.
)
