First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Death Penalty Debate
462 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 10/9/09 , edited 10/9/09

JJT2 wrote:


tweexar wrote:

death penalty deters crime.

that's my premise as of the moment.


death penalty only deters the person who did the crime... we dont even see the person die, so it certainly doesnt deter other criminals...and LIFE in prison deters the person who did the crime as well...besides is death really punishment? peace over war


dont you think people who want to kill other people will have SECOND THOUGHTS before doing murder because they know that there's a death penalty waiting for them? we can't see them kill the criminal, but WE KNOW that there is actually something like that existing. we dont have to experience and see something before we know that it is existing. Example, your brain. you know you have brain. but did you see it?

and why cant we consider death penalty a punishment? it fits the stipulative definition of punishment.

edit:
and statistics shows that after implementing death penalty, crimes deterred.
source: http://www.heritage.org/research/Crime/tst082807a.cfm
4302 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 10/9/09 , edited 10/9/09

tweexar wrote:


JJT2 wrote:


tweexar wrote:

death penalty deters crime.

that's my premise as of the moment.


death penalty only deters the person who did the crime... we dont even see the person die, so it certainly doesnt deter other criminals...and LIFE in prison deters the person who did the crime as well...besides is death really punishment? peace over war


dont you think people who want to kill other people will have SECOND THOUGHTS before doing murder because they know that there's a death penalty waiting for them? we can't see them kill the criminal, but WE KNOW that there is actually something like that existing. we dont have to experience and see something before we know that it is existing. Example, your brain. you know you have brain. but did you see it?

and why cant we consider death penalty a punishment? it fits the stipulative definition of punishment.

edit:
and statistics shows that after implementing death penalty, crimes deterred.
source: http://www.heritage.org/research/Crime/tst082807a.cfm


statistics and research shows criminals dont have 2nd thoughts. They dont sit there and analyse thier choices and the consequences.Most are to stupid to even think that far ahead. They dont believe they will get caught, hell, most of them dont- not the smart ones ne way. And with plea bargaining- they can just overide the death penatly ne way.

When u speed, do u prepare yourself to be pulled over and willing pay a ticket? hell no. or u wouldnt be speeding in the first place. Why do criminals rob banks? so they can keep the money. Whats the purpose of robbing a bank if u plan on getting caught? Criminals are stupid, but they r not mentally ill. I dont kill a man and plan on being punished. Most deaths are out of passion, hatred, cockyness. And the guys that do kill and decide to turn themselves in or NOT run from the law dont deserve the death penatly ne way.Because they are showing a level of responsibility that is rare and honorable- and the judge WILL see and notice that, and take it into account.


Edit: i read your link, all it shows is outdated studies and correalations with no real evidence.And outdated thoeries as well as assumptions. And its stated at the beggining that the article is not to be confused as a universaly accepted data.

"Our Mission
To formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense."- from article

enough said, its too biased to take seriously.

peace over war
462 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 10/10/09

JJT2 wrote:



robbery has nothing to do with death penalty. the crime i was referring here was MURDER and killing INTENTIONALLY. inserting robbery as an example is invalid.

"Criminals are stupid, but they r not mentally ill. "

exactly, they know what they are doing because their mind is in the right condition. Mentally ill persons are, if im not mistaken, exempted from death penalty.

"Most deaths are out of passion, hatred, cockyness." dont you think these reasons would justify killing?

"And the guys that do kill and decide to turn themselves in or NOT run from the law dont deserve the death penatly ne way."

so those who want to run away are the only ones be sentenced to death? is that what you call justice? Do you think they can run even if they want to? THEY HAVE NO CHOICE but to stay inside. if that's only your reason why death penalty shouldnt be allowed, then you need to present stronger premises.

" Because they are showing a level of responsibility that is rare and honorable- and the judge WILL see and notice that, and take it into account. "

if im the criminal and i know that this is the basis of the law, then i can do an ACT and make them see that i had changed, but actually i had not.

so going back to the deters crime:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/11/national/main2911428.shtml

if you want more proofs.
saying that it was outdated, do you think 2007 is outdated for a study and research? so you really think that the world can change in one day? it was just two years passed. do you think a drastic change would occur?

" And its stated at the beggining that the article is not to be confused as a universaly accepted data."

of course, because the Ph.D person only conducted his research in the USA. i dont think he can able to do a research in the whole world just to present his FACTS. And how can you call it assumptions? he has his sources at the bottom. and you call that ASSUMPTION? did he assume or did he ANALYZE data?

it cant be a universally accepted data because we have, i admit, different forms of government in the world. what happened in the USA may not be the same thing in other countries.

And even if it doesnt create any SIGNIFICANT effect in crimes, at least it creates an effect. Putting the murderers in jail wont give a guarantee that they will be forever there. What if he was given a parole? or an amnesty? and i rarely know persons spending their whole life in jail.

Again, psychologically, it would be really hard to change a person. Instances will make him go back to what he/she was.

conclusion: death penalty is a justified form of punishment.

AGAIN i just want to clear out the usage of crime in my premises.
crime = repetitive murder, atrocious and intentional killing.
4302 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
forgot where
Offline
Posted 10/11/09 , edited 10/11/09

tweexar wrote:


JJT2 wrote:



robbery has nothing to do with death penalty. the crime i was referring here was MURDER and killing INTENTIONALLY. inserting robbery as an example is invalid.

"Criminals are stupid, but they r not mentally ill. "

exactly, they know what they are doing because their mind is in the right condition. Mentally ill persons are, if im not mistaken, exempted from death penalty.

"Most deaths are out of passion, hatred, cockyness." dont you think these reasons would justify killing?

"And the guys that do kill and decide to turn themselves in or NOT run from the law dont deserve the death penatly ne way."

so those who want to run away are the only ones be sentenced to death? is that what you call justice? Do you think they can run even if they want to? THEY HAVE NO CHOICE but to stay inside. if that's only your reason why death penalty shouldnt be allowed, then you need to present stronger premises.

" Because they are showing a level of responsibility that is rare and honorable- and the judge WILL see and notice that, and take it into account. "

if im the criminal and i know that this is the basis of the law, then i can do an ACT and make them see that i had changed, but actually i had not.

so going back to the deters crime:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/11/AR2007061100406.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/11/national/main2911428.shtml

if you want more proofs.
saying that it was outdated, do you think 2007 is outdated for a study and research? so you really think that the world can change in one day? it was just two years passed. do you think a drastic change would occur?

" And its stated at the beggining that the article is not to be confused as a universaly accepted data."

of course, because the Ph.D person only conducted his research in the USA. i dont think he can able to do a research in the whole world just to present his FACTS. And how can you call it assumptions? he has his sources at the bottom. and you call that ASSUMPTION? did he assume or did he ANALYZE data?

it cant be a universally accepted data because we have, i admit, different forms of government in the world. what happened in the USA may not be the same thing in other countries.

And even if it doesnt create any SIGNIFICANT effect in crimes, at least it creates an effect. Putting the murderers in jail wont give a guarantee that they will be forever there. What if he was given a parole? or an amnesty? and i rarely know persons spending their whole life in jail.

Again, psychologically, it would be really hard to change a person. Instances will make him go back to what he/she was.

conclusion: death penalty is a justified form of punishment.

AGAIN i just want to clear out the usage of crime in my premises.
crime = repetitive murder, atrocious and intentional killing.


Honestly speaking, i used to be against the death penalty, but now im niether for it or against it. Im actually against the entire justice system, and since the death penalty is part of that system, i like to harp on it

well, if where talking about only the most brutal of murderers, then i say life in prison (actually spending entire life there- no parole, and other types of bull shit). Does the same thing. Though in my honest opinion, i believe the way life sentences and death penalties are carried out makes both processes pointless.
So for the sake of a good argument, lets go to an ideal thought process, where the Death penalty is carried out in under 5 days, and life in prison is actually life in prison...

Considering how rare felonies are, prison space wont be affected by either decision. People claim life in prison is cheaper, but i suppose those statistics can be manipulated to prove the exact opposite...

I dont want to move this debate on moral fibers, because it becomes a pointless struggle of right vs right.

instead, lets move to functionality. which works better and for what purpose? Life in prison forces the guy to give back to society what he took away. death is just a release. Either way he cant kill again- both deterent crime in that sense.

Death pentaly works for the purpose of revenge- "an eye for an eye". I believe if you are too cowardly to extract the revenge yourself, then u shouldnt dirty the governments hands with your issues.- "for the people"

life in prison works for the purpose of redemption- "i change myself, i change the world"-forgot who. Turn the guy into a slave, and have him do work to benefit society. Without any rights or constitutional protections, he is just a slave, so why burn out free labor b4 it loses its purposeness?
-"for the government"

btw, ill check your other sources out later, but the 1st one was clearly bias and based on correalations which cant prove cause and effect. Besides there was such a fesable amount of evidence. "For ever guy executed a murder dropped?" crime rates are not even acurate to begin with, and it doesnt even explain how this is possible. Why or how would a murderer stop murdering because his collegue (or a complete stranger) was sentenced to death?
All im saying is that your 1st resourse was based on the theory criminals act and think like "normal" civilians. That they wiegh the consequences of thier actions with the punishments. This is an outdated thoery (back as far as the 1800s?), the 2nd one of its kind. There are more sofisticated crime thoeries out there...at least 7 more capable then that one.besides some of the research in that site dated as far back as the 90s, 80s, and 70s...

all from 1st site-

"The views I express in this testimony are my own and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation."


"This testimony was delivered on June 27, 2007"

"Using a panel data set of over 3,000 counties from 1977 to 1996, Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that each execution, on average, results in 18 fewer murders.[17] Using state-level panel data from 1960 to 2000"

"Separately, Professor Shepherd's analysis of monthly data from 1977 to 1999 found three important findings"

"The first study used state-level data from 1977 to 1997 to analyze the influence of executions, commutations, and removals from death row on the incidence of murder."

"also support the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Using state-level data from 1978 to 1997"

"Using a small state-level data set from 1995 to 1999, Professor Robert B. Ekelund of Auburn University and his colleagues analyzed the effect that executions have on single incidents of murder and multiple incidents of murder.[25] They found that executions reduced single murder rates, while there was no effect on multiple murder rates."

"AGAIN i just want to clear out the usage of crime in my premises.
crime = repetitive murder, atrocious and intentional killing"

i mean, if u read it carefully, it kind of speaks for itself...i cant even remember when the death penalty was outlawed, but i know amrican culture was slightly different through out the 70s and 90s...and from my understanding, crime rates are 100% unaccurate in the USA.

Conclusion- The death penalty does NOT save lifes, it takes them. You cant prove a murderer wont kill because of some guy got executed that he is not even cognisent of.

P.S. And yes, America can change in one day- just look at 9/11- USA changed in 24 hrs, and by the 25th hour, it went back to the same ole crap again..ahhh to be american peace over war

Posted 10/11/09
If anything that death penalty can prove is the fact that the most horrible of criminals are subjective to death due to public scrutiny. It's when the people vindicating their pain and outrage onto others due to their emotions overruled their sense of laws and justice. So the death penalty doesn't penalize any crime, when it only serves to justify the public's act of killing.
Posted 10/11/09 , edited 10/11/09
"Some people go through life begging to be killed." - The Godfather
538 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / F
Offline
Posted 10/16/09
death penalty is a good form of punishment because it lessen crimes and deters others from committing crimes. but it still depends on the country if it is going to use death penalty. a country's culture and beliefs affect the choice of implementing death penalty in that country
Posted 10/17/09

hitachiin_hikaru wrote:

death penalty is a good form of punishment because it lessen crimes and deters others from committing crimes. but it still depends on the country if it is going to use death penalty. a country's culture and beliefs affect the choice of implementing death penalty in that country


Actually you're wrong. There's no proof that the DP deters people from committing crimes (my area of focus). And so many innocent people have been wrongly put to death by the DP. Honestly, I think there's a cleaner and better method in dealing with those in prisons.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 10/18/09
Man to be honest I really dont see a difference between the death penalty and life sentence. They both are equal I mean spending the rest of your life in jail means absoultely no improvement on your life and take a toll on you. Yea but I do agree about the death penalty being applied to other things besides murder. Take that Jaycee Dugaurd case she was raped at a young age, caged for 18 years I believe, and bore two children from the guy. Such a horrible crime should put the man to death. Really we gave him a chance he was already a registered offender and did this same activity in the past. I believe if they come out of jail and dont learn anything, continue the same crime then they are still a hazard to the community and should be made example of. I believe crimes like these are pretty rare in a lot of strict countries due to the sever punishment these criminals recieve.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
114
Offline
Posted 10/18/09

drizza wrote:

Man to be honest I really dont see a difference between the death penalty and life sentence. They both are equal I mean spending the rest of your life in jail means absoultely no improvement on your life and take a toll on you. Yea but I do agree about the death penalty being applied to other things besides murder. Take that Jaycee Dugaurd case she was raped at a young age, caged for 18 years I believe, and bore two children from the guy. Such a horrible crime should put the man to death. Really we gave him a chance he was already a registered offender and did this same activity in the past. I believe if they come out of jail and dont learn anything, continue the same crime then they are still a hazard to the community and should be made example of. I believe crimes like these are pretty rare in a lot of strict countries due to the sever punishment these criminals recieve.


wow Drizza, you're buff!!

Anyways, I think the death penalty is very different from a life sentence. Death penalty not much of a punishment for a serious crime, IMO, they just die quickly and are put out of their misery. A life sentence is much worse, especially in the really bad jails and solitary confinement, they have horrible lives there and they have to live with what they did. Just being killed is a much lighter punishment, they don't really suffer.

For some very horrible cases like the one you mentioned, I personally think it should be life in prison and daily torture. And they have to be kept alive as long as possible to make sure we maximize the amount of suffering. Just killing that guy would be very kind to him, he's put out of his misery quickly, while his victims suffer for the rest of their lives.
4053 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Yo Mommas House
Offline
Posted 10/18/09

Yei wrote:


drizza wrote:

Man to be honest I really dont see a difference between the death penalty and life sentence. They both are equal I mean spending the rest of your life in jail means absoultely no improvement on your life and take a toll on you. Yea but I do agree about the death penalty being applied to other things besides murder. Take that Jaycee Dugaurd case she was raped at a young age, caged for 18 years I believe, and bore two children from the guy. Such a horrible crime should put the man to death. Really we gave him a chance he was already a registered offender and did this same activity in the past. I believe if they come out of jail and dont learn anything, continue the same crime then they are still a hazard to the community and should be made example of. I believe crimes like these are pretty rare in a lot of strict countries due to the sever punishment these criminals recieve.


wow Drizza, you're buff!!

Anyways, I think the death penalty is very different from a life sentence. Death penalty not much of a punishment for a serious crime, IMO, they just die quickly and are put out of their misery. A life sentence is much worse, especially in the really bad jails and solitary confinement, they have horrible lives there and they have to live with what they did. Just being killed is a much lighter punishment, they don't really suffer.

For some very horrible cases like the one you mentioned, I personally think it should be life in prison and daily torture. And they have to be kept alive as long as possible to make sure we maximize the amount of suffering. Just killing that guy would be very kind to him, he's put out of his misery quickly, while his victims suffer for the rest of their lives.


Thanks, I been called skinny all my life and decided what the hell I only got one life to live might as well see how far I can take my body. Found a healthy high calorie diet and go to the gym 5 days a week and saw the results. Now it is like an addiction.

Well after reading your post you made a very valid point most notable was letting me know how different death penalty and life was. I do agree even though I dont like torture there has to be more then just a quick death or living your life out. There has to be pain inflicted so you can see what you done. A big issue in the US is repeated offenses once a criminal is released. Maybe if we inflict some very harsh pain to him while in jail he will be terrified to commit that crime again. To be honest I would rather be locked up in jail in the USA then any other country because it is light compared to what they go through. Some countries beat their inmates and have them live in bad conditions.
5231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 10/18/09

Yei wrote:

Anyways, I think the death penalty is very different from a life sentence. Death penalty not much of a punishment for a serious crime, IMO, they just die quickly and are put out of their misery. A life sentence is much worse, especially in the really bad jails and solitary confinement, they have horrible lives there and they have to live with what they did. Just being killed is a much lighter punishment, they don't really suffer.

For some very horrible cases like the one you mentioned, I personally think it should be life in prison and daily torture. And they have to be kept alive as long as possible to make sure we maximize the amount of suffering. Just killing that guy would be very kind to him, he's put out of his misery quickly, while his victims suffer for the rest of their lives.


I don't think the "pain" inflicted by a life sentence is worth the cost of keeping a prisoner alive that long. I don't know if it's like this everywhere, but in my state it costs 3 times as much money to keep a prisoner in jail for a year than it does to keep a kid in public school for a year. I personally don't like the idea that my tax money is going to feed some scumbag who raped/murdered someone. I feel like jail should be a place to eliminate criminals, whether it be through death or rehabilitation, rather than a place to punish them, because eliminating them benefits society more and is ultimately more cost-effective.

Making a prisoner suffer for his crime won't erase the effects of the crime, the victims will always be haunted by it no matter what, so it's better to just get rid of them to ensure that it doesn't happen again to anyone else. The torture idea sounds great to me, but since we aren't allowed to take punishment that far (in America at least), then it's better to kill them or rehabilitate them than to just put them in time-out for 50 years and waste tax money keeping them alive.
Posted 10/18/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Yei wrote:

Anyways, I think the death penalty is very different from a life sentence. Death penalty not much of a punishment for a serious crime, IMO, they just die quickly and are put out of their misery. A life sentence is much worse, especially in the really bad jails and solitary confinement, they have horrible lives there and they have to live with what they did. Just being killed is a much lighter punishment, they don't really suffer.

For some very horrible cases like the one you mentioned, I personally think it should be life in prison and daily torture. And they have to be kept alive as long as possible to make sure we maximize the amount of suffering. Just killing that guy would be very kind to him, he's put out of his misery quickly, while his victims suffer for the rest of their lives.


I don't think the "pain" inflicted by a life sentence is worth the cost of keeping a prisoner alive that long. I don't know if it's like this everywhere, but in my state it costs 3 times as much money to keep a prisoner in jail for a year than it does to keep a kid in public school for a year. I personally don't like the idea that my tax money is going to feed some scumbag who raped/murdered someone. I feel like jail should be a place to eliminate criminals, whether it be through death or rehabilitation, rather than a place to punish them, because eliminating them benefits society more and is ultimately more cost-effective.

Making a prisoner suffer for his crime won't erase the effects of the crime, the victims will always be haunted by it no matter what, so it's better to just get rid of them to ensure that it doesn't happen again to anyone else. The torture idea sounds great to me, but since we aren't allowed to take punishment that far (in America at least), then it's better to kill them or rehabilitate them than to just put them in time-out for 50 years and waste tax money keeping them alive.
Your proposal of rehabilitation intrigues me, for I think in that sense alone, the death penalty serves a purpose to rehabilitate only the innocents. When the death penalty cannot prevent the guilty criminals not to commit crime in the first place. While the innocents will only think of the death penalty as an afterthought, something like "I'm gonna get the death penalty if they caught me doing it."
5231 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 10/18/09

DomFortress wrote:

Your proposal of rehabilitation intrigues me, for I think in that sense alone, the death penalty serves a purpose to rehabilitate only the innocents. When the death penalty cannot prevent the guilty criminals not to commit crime in the first place.


I didn't say that we should use the death penalty as a form of rehabilitation. There's already various programs in prisons across the U.S that help common criminals (mainly former gangsters, petty thieves, and drug dealers) find better ways of supporting themselves than resorting to crime, and I think we should continue to do that when possible, since most criminals are not psychotic and have the potential to become productive members of society. I believe death should only be for severe crimes, mainly murder and rape. Of course individual circumstances would be taken into account, since not all murders kill people for no good reason, and not all cases of rape involve the man violently forcing the woman to have sex with him (a common one-stand can be considered rape if the woman was intoxicated). They should only be sentenced to death when it can be proven beyond all doubts that they are guilty, and when it is made clear that they are psychotic or insanely violent and have no hope of becoming functioning members of society.

Posted 10/18/09 , edited 10/18/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Your proposal of rehabilitation intrigues me, for I think in that sense alone, the death penalty serves a purpose to rehabilitate only the innocents. When the death penalty cannot prevent the guilty criminals not to commit crime in the first place.


I didn't say that we should use the death penalty as a form of rehabilitation. There's already various programs in prisons across the U.S that help common criminals (mainly former gangsters, petty thieves, and drug dealers) find better ways of supporting themselves than resorting to crime, and I think we should continue to do that when possible, since most criminals are not psychotic and have the potential to become productive members of society. I believe death should only be for severe crimes, mainly murder and rape. Of course individual circumstances would be taken into account, since not all murders kill people for no good reason, and not all cases of rape involve the man violently forcing the woman to have sex with him (a common one-stand can be considered rape if the woman was intoxicated). They should only be sentenced to death when it can be proven beyond all doubts that they are guilty, and when it is made clear that they are psychotic or insanely violent and have no hope of becoming functioning members of society.

Ah good. Just making sure that we don't start seeing the court going on a killing spree with the death penalty, that's all.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.