First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
Post Reply Is the death penalty not enough for some crimes?
Posted 5/23/15
Wow - reading some of the stuff in this thread is frightening.

Particularly the suggestions that I consider utterly inhumane and downright evil in the name of "societal convenience and advancement".

Even though i'm against capital punishment, I was always frustrated that people simply dismissed it as "wrong" without considering its merits as a just punishment and giving it due consideration. After reading this thread, not so much. If this is the far end of one side if the spectrum, I think i'll rush over to the far end of the other rather than staying in the middle on this one. Jeez
16390 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / F / Arizona, US
Offline
Posted 5/23/15
All I'll say is this: Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not worth causing as much pain, because it only makes you as bad as him/her. Punishment is necessary, but being inhumane regardless only continues the cycle. It's better to forgive for the sake of yourself, because you'll only be doing harm to yourself if you hold on to that hate.
501 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M / A Mile High
Offline
Posted 5/23/15

A-Eky wrote:

how else would you deter them from committing such heinous crimes, obviously our current methods are not working. this could be worth a try, then again i don't know how effective it will be though.


There is no punishment that will deter someone, THAT disturbed, from committing crimes of that nature or magnitude. They have a compulsion, and no consequence is grave enough to prevent them from acting out that compulsion. Instead of focusing on how far we can push the boundaries of the 10th amendment, perhaps we should be looking at how we deal with mental illness in our society.
24281 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 5/23/15
Yeah he's a monster! Quick, let's stoop down to his level!

12472 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Utopia
Offline
Posted 5/23/15 , edited 5/23/15

PapaNeko wrote:


A-Eky wrote:

how else would you deter them from committing such heinous crimes, obviously our current methods are not working. this could be worth a try, then again i don't know how effective it will be though.


There is no punishment that will deter someone, THAT disturbed, from committing crimes of that nature or magnitude. They have a compulsion, and no consequence is grave enough to prevent them from acting out that compulsion. Instead of focusing on how far we can push the boundaries of the 10th amendment, perhaps we should be looking at how we deal with mental illness in our society.


I agree with you on that but not all criminals have mental illness issues so even though it's an important thing to focus and improve on, its not the solution. I think we either go all out in punishing criminals or try to do prison reform like Sweden, it's either Sweden or Norway, I forgot which one. They don't believe in long term incarceration and try to actually help the priprisoners non matter how heinous their crimes is. I prefer this option over severe and capital punishment

Posted 5/23/15

Nobodyofimportance wrote:


I'm going to say this as clearly as possible.
Every one of your actions is irreversible. Period.
There are no crimes nor acts of good will that can be erased.
So every time you go around spreading pain or suffering you permanently make the world worse.
And every time you go around spreading goodwill and compassion you make it better.
It is not acceptable, under any circumstances, to wish for others to come to harm.


but that's their freedom maan
17065 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Fredericton, NB
Offline
Posted 5/23/15 , edited 5/23/15


I think the topic word, some crimes is important to note. To myself, some crimes in which this should be applicable are ones that are proven absolutely guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt what so ever, not the so called balance of probabilities model. As far as I'm concerned, killing and raping a family, that would constitute as hanging up your human card.

Of course I'm reluctant to give this power to any current state, I won't waste time getting into world matters, but I couldn't trust any at this point.

Well, it's sort of like death penalty you see. Instead of the chair or regular 'lethal' dose. Inject them with a potent disease that will quickly kill them, if you want humane then pump them up with morphine to dull any pain and study the course of the disease in the body to develop vaccinations. It's actually really close to the death penalty for all intensive purposes, the only thing standing in the way would be that research ethics that prevents someone from human testing.

The big difference of personal opinion is it that you instantly apply ethics to them, while I find my reluctant to do so. After seeing a friend after she was raped and staying up all night to talk things through with her, I still can't fathom how painful this must have been on her, so I have a hard time considering them human. On the other hand even putting aside the testing without consent, the option of this should be on the table, taking it a different way, you could even offer incentives, even monsters often have family, tell them they could help their family could be compensated?

At the end of the day, the volunteer solution would probably be rather good for society. While one part of me does judge certain crimes rather harshly and constituting not deserving to be called a human, we can't just go doing things ones may deem to be against current ethics as we really don't have a better system at this point in time.

9380 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / San Antonio
Offline
Posted 5/23/15
So what....like a super death penalty where we super kill them?
5149 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / Washington/Califo...
Offline
Posted 5/23/15
nope the death penalty is the easy way out, I say permanent solitary confinement. If someone wants to result to acting like a beast then we should treat and cage them like one. though this should differ if the said person does have a legit mental issue and/or the circumstances are very flip floppy. but in the end I do believe in an eye for an eye, since we as society has made the price of a human life invaluable then when you take or steal someones life from them how to repay that debt??? well usually you would have to pay interest/fine if you actually stole money and or a subject of value, and in this case instead of a set percentage you would pay with first your emotions, then your mind, and slowly but surely your life. as you wither away in a dark space alone with just you and your thoughts, or as I call it living hell.
5064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 5/23/15
Lets go to Salem Massachusetts, and burn witches. We all know that there were really witches, and they need to be burned!!!!!

Yes I don't believe in the death penalty.

Killing someone should only be done to prevent them from doing that act again.
35064 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 5/23/15

J-POP187 wrote:

While your correct on the current ethics of this. I would argue if the convicts had a chance to volunteer for a program like this and their family will be compensated, plus you have oversight while the scientists " of course voluntary who want to take part in this research". While I see people protesting this I could see the big picture where results are being made and once that happens it's human nature to follow success. The program would spread and the scientific community would revise the rules and morals of such a practice.

As for the topic is the death penalty not enough for all cases. I don't believe so but if we could have options or in this case the convicts has options
such as once you sentence is carried out can we use your body for research, donate your organs to those who need them. I'm trying to find a compromise between those who support capital punishment and those who don't. Would you have a problem with a voluntary program?


The first thing that would need to happen in any research involving human subjects is a review board would need to evaluate the proposed methods for obtaining consent, the specific methods to be carried out as part of the research proper, the objectives of the research, and so on. That review board's job would be to ensure that the process for obtaining consent was legitimately obtaining freely given and fully-informed consent, the methods of the research do not unduly endanger the subjects (to include their personal, private information) or cause them unnecessary discomfort, and finally to examine the balance between subjects' human rights and the potential societal benefits to be obtained from the research. Seeing as how there are additional challenges to be considered when constructing a method for gathering informed consent from the incarcerated, not the least of which is the consideration of how to ensure consent isn't being obtained under duress, this is a tall order. However, as I have made plain, it is also necessary that the order be tall.

Sure, this slows down the process of getting projects started and creates all kinds of headaches in the process of constructing a research protocol. It also saves lives and ensures not only that the dignity of research subjects is protected, but also provides an extra layer for ensuring that research which is to be carried out is genuinely merited and scientifically rigorous. That's right: ethics are as much a safeguard for scientific rigor as they are for ensuring human dignity. Think of them as quality control for research, just like peer reviews.


KnightOfZero1991 wrote:

I think the topic word, some crimes is important to note. To myself, some crimes in which this should be applicable are ones that are proven absolutely guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt what so ever, not the so called balance of probabilities model. As far as I'm concerned, killing and raping a family, that would constitute as hanging up your human card.


Everything from the misapplication of a particular statute, to the potential for further evidence or testimony to unexpectedly emerge at some point, to the possibility that witnesses either misremembered details (which is actually very bloody common) or outright lied (also a thing that happens), makes the absolute certainty standard preposterous. That's why it's not used: it's completely impractical.

As for the last bit, your opinion on whether inmates guilty of selected offences are human beings has been made abundantly clear. Society abandoned the power to declare people subhumans for good reason, and I see no good reason to reestablish that power.


Of course I'm reluctant to give this power to any current state, I won't waste time getting into world matters, but I couldn't trust any at this point.


No state, past, present, or future, should be endowed with the power to strip people of their humanity. It is a power which should be withheld from the state even in the most utopian wonderland.


Well, it's sort of like death penalty you see. Instead of the chair or regular 'lethal' dose. Inject them with a potent disease that will quickly kill them, if you want humane then pump them up with morphine to dull any pain and study the course of the disease in the body to develop vaccinations. It's actually really close to the death penalty for all intensive purposes, the only thing standing in the way would be that research ethics that prevents someone from human testing.


There would actually be quite a lot standing in the way of that protocol. The necessity for human subjects stands as a prime example. You haven't demonstrated the human subjects' necessity here, which essentially means you'd need to explain why the disease's progression and mechanism of action couldn't be studied in cell cultures or animal models, why prison populations in particular were selected, and so on. Remember how I said ethics are part protection of human dignity, part protection of scientific rigor? This is exactly what I meant.


The big difference of personal opinion is it that you instantly apply ethics to them, while I find my reluctant to do so. After seeing a friend after she was raped and staying up all night to talk things through with her, I still can't fathom how painful this must have been on her, so I have a hard time considering them human. On the other hand even putting aside the testing without consent, the option of this should be on the table, taking it a different way, you could even offer incentives, even monsters often have family, tell them they could help their family could be compensated?

At the end of the day, the volunteer solution would probably be rather good for society. While one part of me does judge certain crimes rather harshly and constituting not deserving to be called a human, we can't just go doing things ones may deem to be against current ethics as we really don't have a better system at this point in time.


I think I addressed all of this, but let me know if I missed anything.
39017 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Tralfamadore
Online
Posted 5/23/15 , edited 5/23/15
Obviously it's very necessary to escalate as the death penalty has been shown to be no deterrence. So if they take a member of your family, you get to kill,rape,mutilate one of theirs, this would only serve them right.
Posted 5/23/15
No to it for the most part. Every now and then a case thats heinous comes along (such as involving cruelty to animals) that I begin to question my view on it, but no, not when someone can later be found innocent.
1495 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / M / CS Colorado
Offline
Posted 5/23/15 , edited 5/23/15

CSPower wrote:

die the way they killed.
is that not true justice?
if not, what is?


EDIT: this was not meant to be taken literally. it was more a sarcastic comment. there is no true justice other than this. so true justice is not a option, theirs whats right and whats wrong and killing a killer will not bring back the dead making it wrong.*sarcasm*that being said its probably better if the killers are spending there days eating both food and other things, right...right???

no good answer is available, period,end of story.
5575 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
16 / M / California
Offline
Posted 5/23/15
No Cruel or Unusual Punishments

Amendment 8 of the constitution

Also dying is actually the worst it can get.
If you're gesturing to the should also be tortured and actually just as inhumane as they are.

2 wrongs don't make a right fam
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.