Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage of Earth
But if he's such a monster for imprisoning someone, then we're doing the same to him. Just because we're justified to imprison doesn't mean it's any less wrong than what he did.
|
What you're saying in this is: Let's COMPLETELY remove the factors that surround the crime this man committed and the parties involved. Let's ignore the fact there was someone INNOCENT being abused and raped and unjustly wronged and imprisoned for 24 years? We should forget all this and merely equate the locking up factor?
Are you equating someone who is innocent to someone who has committed a heinous crime?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage of Earth
Also justice is giving each their due, and giving somebody what they deserve. A crime deserves punishment, but of equal value to the crime committed. Not necessarily have the crime done to them. Using the death penalty on a murderer is not a case of "a life for a life", it's a case of simple punishment, eliminating the costs of keeping someone who won't ever be leaving prison alive, and eliminating a threat to public safety.
|
The costs of keeping someone alive is a secondary point. By going against a
BASIC human value of killing an innocent life, you have forfeited your right to be treated or
expecting to be treated as a normal human being. I seriously don't understand why it is the victim's taxpaying relatives/loved ones who are forced to pay to keep the killer alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tazryl
That is disgusting and such a terrible thing to do. 
I believe it should only be used if the person has committed several acts of murder and shows no signs of remorse other then that of getting caught.
Only in the most brutal cases should it be allowed, otherwise I say let them rot in jail. |
Several acts?
You most definitely speak through the eyes of an
observer. Why don't we change the scenario a little. How many members of your family and loved ones must a person kill before you would feel they deserve to be killed? Because from what I understand, the word "several" means three or more. So in your case, for a person to kill your mother AND father would still not suffice for them to be considered worthy of death.
Why don't we all stop thinking about this issue from an observer's standpoint, and think about it in terms of the people we love and hold dear to our heart if they were murdered?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Latex Glove
By placing someone with the jail cell, however, it is possible to retain their life and also keep them away from others.
|
It would sicken me if I knew that my tax money was going towards feeding, clothing and medically caring for the person who killed my mother. Wouldn't it sicken you?
I'd like to look at the next one slowly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aralith
If someone knows that when they commit an atrocious act that they'll get maybe five years of waiting on death row and then getting killed themselves, they may be more inclined to commit the crime if they don't care about their lives,whereas if the punishment is spending the rest of your life (and if you're 30, that's a lot of time) in a prison. To me, if the punishment were the latter, I would definitely rethink committing a crime. Now, while this only applies in crimes with pre-meditation, I think the point still stands. We may be spending money to keep this one man alive for 40 years in prison, but how many other people is that one man stopping from committing crimes for fear of the same punishment?
|
You're very confusing and very misleading in the way you presented your argument. At first, you start off by saying that
"if they don't care about their lives" they'd be more inclined to commit the crime if they knew they'd be disposed of quickly. But then you quickly switch to the
"and if they DO care about their lives, then the other option - long term imprisonment - is more of a punishment"; as though there is only one option for each scenario. You need to be more clear and credible: If someone cares for their life, what is worse, to have that life taken away from them? Or, to sit for a while in prison knowing that they'll be out at some point? which is more of a deterrent?
The issue of someone not caring for their life is irrelevant; merely for the fact that the killer in question did not kill themselves after committing the crime. The mere fact that they're still there means they care. So your point fails in that aspect. And to conclude, the prospect of losing this life that they care about, is much more of a deterrent than to know that they have hope in coming out after they've finished their "time-out"/grounding stage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDwarf
I'm opposed to it.
There are a few reasons for this. First off, you can never be certain that someone did, in fact, commit a crime. You can be well over 99% sure, but that's not the same thing. (If, let's say, 1 000 people are killed every decade, all of whom you are 99% sure are guilty that's still 100 innocent people killed. Fun.)
Secondly, it doesn't seem to have any measurable effect on crime. Countries that had the death penalty and got rid of it didn't have a sudden rise (or, admittedly, fall) in crime rates. Why? Because criminals assume they won't be caught. They don't do a cost-benefit analysis before they kill someone in anger.
|
You're saying that even the hardest of hard evidence and unquestionable testimonies that you can
NEVER ever be 100% certain? I can't accept that. I do agree with you that as humans, we do err, but I don't agree that it's an impossibility to reach a 100% conclusion in every case.
And then why did you limit the killings to moments of anger? Why not expand to the wider aspect which involves planned and thought-out killings? Why not talk about serial killers? Repeat offenders?
Quote:
Thirdly, the point of laws is to keep society running smoothly, that's it. Killing people doesn't make it run any more smoothly than putting them in jail does.
|
Actually, the current system isn't keeping society running smoothly. Here in the UK, rapists and violent criminals are being let out after 6 months simply because the "jailing" system isn't working properly. People actually find it easier these days to commit crimes because they realise the current situation, and that the punishment will not be extended to its full amount.
Quote:
Finally, according to pro-death penalty people in past threads people tend to spend 25 years on death row before they're killed. Which means that they cost more (need to have a much more thorough investigation before you can give the death penalty) than simply having people in for life.
|
In which country?
Quote:
...So, it apparently has no benefits, gives the law far too much power, is morally questionable, and can kill innocent people.
What, exactly, is the upside?
|
Again, I think your opinion would be different if you were afflicted personally.