First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
Post Reply The Death Penalty
Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/15/15 , edited 2/15/15

kingrumZ wrote:

But killing Saddam destabilized the whole region, eventually after all the fighting is done Iraq and Syria will probably be split into many mini countries each with there own Saddam-like dictator and maybe just ONE democracy MAYBE.


Honestly, Iraq was an artificial country to begin with created by Great Britain. Killing Saddam didn't destablize the region. Deposing him did. It's doubtful the country would have had any improved chances of surviving as a stable entity beyond the man's life, should he had gone the route of Tito of Yugoslavia. If the goal was to move on from Saddam and form a new stabilizing state(s), which was Bush's goal, then killing Saddam would have been necessary. He was a center of gravity for those who supported him, who would have been opposed to any sort of reform. Another contributing factor for the destabilization is the USA's insistence on trying to maintain the fiction of an "Iraq" which the British just made up.


kingrumZ wrote:


I agree with you that there may be no threat to the public in the case of a prisoner, however, do you think that the cost of living for a prisoners is worth potentially keeping one innocent alive? Even though we could spend that money else where say on the poor or higher education? say we spend money and change the environment of the poor there might be less prisoners to begin with. There is the possibility of SOME threat to the general public in case of a prisoner, there are prison gangs and kingpins that are in jail that still have authority in the outside world.


I'm sorry, but I simply don't understand your question. Could you perhaps rephrase it?
24930 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Atlanta, GA, USA
Offline
Posted 2/15/15
There are a few mass murderers who are pretty outrageous and they don't even deny the crimes. In those rare cases, the death penalty seems appropriate just to comfort the public. There's no real difference in how they die. Seems like a large garbage disposal would be quick, painless, and easy to maintain.

Not having the death penalty would pretty much make no difference, though.
51110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 2/15/15
No offense, but people who support the death penalty need to stop living in medieval times. I'm not just talking about the U.S. There are some places around the world where even stoning people to death is acceptable. You don't need a priest telling you that burning a cat alive is inhumane. You shouldn't need anyone telling you why using death as a punishment is inhumane.

The only exception should be if someone has any influence (like a politician or a cult leader) and they commit a large enough crime like mass murder, brainwashing a large population (Nazi Germany, North Korea), etc. If a person this dangerous has any influence outside of prison, then they still pose a threat to the public.

If anyone is worried about prisons getting crowded, the solution is simple. Stop over-sentencing every single petty crime out there! Nobody should be in jail for 20+ years for selling pot. Save the long sentences for the murderers, serial rapists, terrorists, etc.
13055 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Kentucky
Offline
Posted 2/15/15
The death penalty is a waste of money. It costs more to execute someone than it wold to imprison them for life without parole.
23206 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Long Island
Offline
Posted 2/15/15
I don't see any point in the death penalty, it serves no purpose other than vengeance. Statistics don't support the claim that it's a deterrent, and innocent people have been wrongly executed in the past. Eyewitness testimony is the leading cause of wrongful convictions, because we humans have bad memories.

If we wrongfully convict someone we can release them if they're in prison, if they're dead then...oops? We use lethal injection to create the illusion that it's a clean process, but there is nothing clean about killing someone who is in custody and no longer a threat to society.

I realize there is a cost to keep prisoners alive, but there are people in prison who I believe shouldn't be there. IMO drug abusers don't belong in prison as it just makes their situations worse, but that's a whole other topic.
8345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / UK
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
Im in the UK so we dont have the death penalty, but I think we should for one type of crime - Murder.

I believe if you feel you have the right to take someones life, then you should lose yours too. Why should someone be allowed to continue to live after they have taken somone elses life...
Rohzek 
15004 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/15 , edited 2/16/15

PhantomGundam wrote:

No offense, but people who support the death penalty need to stop living in medieval times. I'm not just talking about the U.S. There are some places around the world where even stoning people to death is acceptable. You don't need a priest telling you that burning a cat alive is inhumane. You shouldn't need anyone telling you why using death as a punishment is inhumane.

The only exception should be if someone has any influence (like a politician or a cult leader) and they commit a large enough crime like mass murder, brainwashing a large population (Nazi Germany, North Korea), etc. If a person this dangerous has any influence outside of prison, then they still pose a threat to the public.

If anyone is worried about prisons getting crowded, the solution is simple. Stop over-sentencing every single petty crime out there! Nobody should be in jail for 20+ years for selling pot. Save the long sentences for the murderers, serial rapists, terrorists, etc.


We should certainly decriminalize drugs and save long sentences for worse crimes. However, why would that necessarily mean that we should get rid of the the death penalty? You make these arguments of inhumanity, but don't back them up. Let's say it was inhumane or morally wrong, which I am certainly sympathetic to. Then how would you argue against someone who agrees, but deems it as a necessary evil?

"Stop living in medieval times"? You seem to think that after all this time, humanity is better off morally, which I completely disagree with. First off, for most of the medieval period, the death penalty was rarely employed. Imposed exile was generally the most severe punishment. Killing someone, even if they were a criminal, had the potential to start a blood feud, so communities generally avoided it. Furthermore, considering the 20th century was by far the bloodiest and most gruesome in human history, I'd be hesitant to begin to think we are morally better today. We might not burn people at the stakes anymore, but we sure as hell make up for that.
79 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
The second question was meant to be on someone elses post, sorry.
6197 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / USA- Ohio
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
I think the death sentence should go to murderers. "Mercy only murders, when killers are pardoned."
79 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/16/15
Making Alcohol illegal was one of the first things women did when they had some political power in America :D
(there are many more things)

Imma go with A,
BUT A led to B! haha.
Even with alcoholic beverages legal, binge drinking among college students has been called a major public health concern according to the Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
31% of college students meet the criteria for alcohol abuse,
25% blame alcohol for poor academic performance,
600,000 students are assaulted by another student who has been drinking.



Source: Social Problems: Community, Policy, and Social Action
author : Anna Leon- Guerrero.
Media: Printed

What I concluded from reading sociology books is that drugs are always going to be a mess if they are legal or not legal.
Legalizing drugs does decrease the profit of the black market but at the same time it causes other social problems.
Legalizing drugs seems to only change the negative social impact it has on society( not eliminate it) , or moves it from poor cities to more populated inner cities.
79 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 2/16/15 , edited 2/16/15

Rohzek wrote:


PhantomGundam wrote:

No offense, but people who support the death penalty need to stop living in medieval times. I'm not just talking about the U.S. There are some places around the world where even stoning people to death is acceptable. You don't need a priest telling you that burning a cat alive is inhumane. You shouldn't need anyone telling you why using death as a punishment is inhumane.

The only exception should be if someone has any influence (like a politician or a cult leader) and they commit a large enough crime like mass murder, brainwashing a large population (Nazi Germany, North Korea), etc. If a person this dangerous has any influence outside of prison, then they still pose a threat to the public.

If anyone is worried about prisons getting crowded, the solution is simple. Stop over-sentencing every single petty crime out there! Nobody should be in jail for 20+ years for selling pot. Save the long sentences for the murderers, serial rapists, terrorists, etc.


We should certainly decriminalize drugs and save long sentences for worse crimes. However, why would that necessarily mean that we should get rid of the the death penalty? You make these arguments of inhumanity, but don't back them up. Let's say it was inhumane or morally wrong, which I am certainly sympathetic to. Then how would you argue against someone who agrees, but deems it as a necessary evil?

"Stop living in medieval times"? You seem to think that after all this time, humanity is better off morally, which I completely disagree with. First off, for most of the medieval period, the death penalty was rarely employed. Imposed exile was generally the most severe punishment. Killing someone, even if they were a criminal, had the potential to start a blood feud, so communities generally avoided it. Furthermore, considering the 20th century was by far the bloodiest and most gruesome in human history, I'd be hesitant to begin to think we are morally better today. We might not burn people at the stakes anymore, but we sure as hell make up for that.



I always wonder what it means when people say "we live in the 21st century". Like having a black president and cars that park themselves some how is supposed to correlate to humans being nicer.
Posted 2/16/15 , edited 2/16/15
I think it's a good idea for the most part but it requires to be free from corruption and that is what's unlikely. The ultimate goal is to deter people from committing crime.

Rohzek wrote:


kingrumZ wrote:

But killing Saddam destabilized the whole region, eventually after all the fighting is done Iraq and Syria will probably be split into many mini countries each with there own Saddam-like dictator and maybe just ONE democracy MAYBE.


Honestly, Iraq was an artificial country to begin with created by Great Britain. Killing Saddam didn't destablize the region. Deposing him did. It's doubtful the country would have had any improved chances of surviving as a stable entity beyond the man's life, should he had gone the route of Tito of Yugoslavia. If the goal was to move on from Saddam and form a new stabilizing state(s), which was Bush's goal, then killing Saddam would have been necessary. He was a center of gravity for those who supported him, who would have been opposed to any sort of reform. Another contributing factor for the destabilization is the USA's insistence on trying to maintain the fiction of an "Iraq" which the British just made up.


Long ago i argued that most of the arab countries are better off living under dictatorship. The Rights Revolution does nothing but create avoidable chaos where the likelihood of the country falling yet again into the wrong hands is more than probable.
27229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

Crazyace90 wrote:

The death penalty is a waste of money. It costs more to execute someone than it wold to imprison them for life without parole.


^this.
27230 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/15 , edited 2/16/15
I think the central relevant issue is the morality of the punishment itself. Some people think it's barbaric while others, like myself, think it's acceptable. Each side has its own share of strong reasons, of course, which is why this is controversial. The punishment and procedure are separate matters. I don't like the current system that administers this punishment because it's so wasteful and inefficient (also applies to the jail sentences) but the punishments themselves are okay.

If killing is so evil and completely intolerable, shouldn't a person who commits murder without remorse be given the harshest available punishment? Whether it's jail or the death penalty, the punishment is actually too lenient, I'd say. We've already taken our humanity into consideration by not torturing the guy as he did his victims. Therefore, lethal injection is an acceptable punishment in my eyes. It is the harshest punishment we can give without resorting to torture and infliction of pain for the sake of vengeance ourselves. This means we are already not acting as though we are living in medieval times. Capital punishment back then was in a whole different league. Lethal injections are nothing in comparison.

I do not think all killing is unjustifiable. This is because I don't usually like things that are so absolute. So-and-so is ALWAYS wrong, so-and-so is NEVER permissible, so-and-so is ALWAYS good. That's not how things work in the world.
51110 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 2/16/15

Rohzek wrote:


We should certainly decriminalize drugs and save long sentences for worse crimes. However, why would that necessarily mean that we should get rid of the the death penalty? You make these arguments of inhumanity, but don't back them up. Let's say it was inhumane or morally wrong, which I am certainly sympathetic to. Then how would you argue against someone who agrees, but deems it as a necessary evil?

"Stop living in medieval times"? You seem to think that after all this time, humanity is better off morally, which I completely disagree with. First off, for most of the medieval period, the death penalty was rarely employed. Imposed exile was generally the most severe punishment. Killing someone, even if they were a criminal, had the potential to start a blood feud, so communities generally avoided it. Furthermore, considering the 20th century was by far the bloodiest and most gruesome in human history, I'd be hesitant to begin to think we are morally better today. We might not burn people at the stakes anymore, but we sure as hell make up for that.


I never said having shorter sentences for petty crimes is a reason why the death penalty is wrong. I only offered that as a possible solution for those concerned with prisons getting crowded since that's been mentioned several times in this thread. I don't see why anyone should have to explain why killing is wrong. It's basic morality. You don't need anyone telling you why stealing or raping for your own pleasure is wrong. How is this any different? Anyone who needs to be told why those things are wrong seriously lack any morals. The only exception, as I mentioned before, should be if a person still poses a threat to the public to the point where holding them in prison isn't enough to avoid the danger.

I don't believe we're better off morally today than we were centuries ago. That's why I made that "stop living in medieval times" comment in the first place. After all this time, society still commonly has the mindset "this guy just robbed the bank. OFF WITH THEIR HEAD!" It's barbaric and accomplishes nothing other than spreading hatred and extremism. Israeli people celebrate when their government bombs Palestinian communities. Palestinians celebrate when Hamas fires rockets into Israel. There are too many people out there who believe putting people to death is the only acceptable punishment.

It's funny that you mentioned the 20th century. That was actually filled with a lot of dangerous power hungry psychos who I personally believe deserved the death penalty. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Charles Manson to name a few. The 20th century (or at least the first half) was one of the darkest times in recent history. Two world wars, millions of Jews getting killed, the Soviet Union forming, the KKK having power, etc. What did all these events have in common? Bigots and extremists thinking that certain groups of people don't deserve to live. I don't know how you possibly interpreted my post as me saying we were better off before when I was saying we need to stop acting like the inhumane people of the past.

It makes me sick seeing people cheer on a person's death. The whole point of prisons is to make people pay for their crimes while also learning to reintegrate into society but this seems like something even prison owners themselves have long forgotten. Killing people and over-sentencing has become a business. The longer people stay in prison and more death sentences mean more money. Putting a dollar sign on people's lives is just disgusting and the ignorant people who blindly support this need to wake up. You asked me to provide reasons explaining why something this messed up and twisted is wrong. I have yet to see any logical reasons why anyone should support this. Most people who support putting people to death are just acting out of anger or out of self interest. Neither of those are valid excuses. We're a society of laws and justice but we might as well be living in Salem during the 1600's.

I don't want this post to get too long so I'll just leave you with this scenario before I finish. You grow up close to your older brother. You admire him, you hope to be an honor student like him, you want to have a nice job like him. Whenever you need help with school or you need advice, he's there to help you. The cops show up one day and arrest him. Then you find out your brother is a serial killer who asks his targets out on dates to lure them away from public. During his trial, the jury is mixed. Some believe he's an insane criminal who is too dangerous to live. Others believe he can amend for his actions and serve his time behind bars. The judge is conflicted and can't decide an appropriate punishment. The two options are between sentencing him to life without parole or sentencing him to death. Which one would you prefer?
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.