Capital Punishment

Chaainsaw

Chaainsaw

Bust :(
Any punishment must be fair, just, adequate, and most of all enforceable. Capital punishment is the punishment of death for a crime (Dictionary, 2005). It is an ancient and time-honoured principle of law and order. Capital punishment for proven premeditated capital crimes is not immoral; it isn’t even a ‘necessary evil’, it is a moral necessity demanded by justice. It is the only punishment roughly proportionate to the harm that has been done to the victim. The death penalty should be retained because it is virtually impossible to find another penalty to replace it. Most people are fair-minded, they think that a criminal should be punished roughly to the extent of the harm (s)he has caused to people- not more and not less. With penalties which do not contemplate the reformation of the criminal are not punishments, but cruelties. By bringing back capital punishment – the death penalty has more rewards in the long run for society and its law abiding-citizens than in comparison that prosecuted inmates serve ‘life in prison without parole’.


Overall, I'm pretty much stating that capital punishment(death) should be brought back (I'm in Canada where our capital punishment is 25 years). What are your thoughts on this controversial topic?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Capital punishment should be illegalised (In the US where it isn't). To kill a human being by putting them to death is wrong. In my opinion, it is not justified. Baicaly what people are doing is deciding that they are up high enough to choose whether a person deserves to live or not. Some people like to say "They are killers. They deserve it." But isn't that much like an eye for an eye? And I think we have moved passt that era in time. Also when it comes to whether it is morally right or not haven't we all been taught that two wrongs do not make a right?If this is true then how can killing a human for killing be right? Other people like to bring up the fact that we have nothing to do with the pyschopathic killers. Why not just putting them in solitary confinement? And no it does not cost mor to do this because Capital punishment is a long process that cost millions of dollars. And the ccumulative cost of taking care of a prisoner for life is actually less than the cost of Capital Punisment
 
I am all for Capital Punishment - so long as the whole shadow of doubt concept is observed. And the justice should not be swift. Time should be allowed for the appeals process.


In the US our Founding Fathers wisely listed 3 inalienable rights. And they chose their order of precedence carefully. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. Take the first one and you choose to give up that right. I mean intentional murder - not accidental, not negligent.


The sort of people who carry out premeditated murder know the cost - and rarely ever care. To fail to carry out a harsh justice is to invite them to take yet another life. I prefer not to offer a murderer such a chance.
 
Personally, I believe in capital punishment. And that it is right. There are some criminals like the Yorkshire Ripper who are too dangerous to be kept alive, no matter what type of cell they are in. If some kind of break appears, they may take that chance to escape.


Killing is wrong and I understand that, but we all have our own opinions and bringing this type of punishment into all countries might actually lower the amount of serial killers that our world is so full of. Whose to say that killers and other offenders can change? Most of the time they can't because something has to trigger why they do what they do.


Serial killers for example, most have some form of psychosis and have had something happen to them to make them do that and they generally won't stop until caught. Then they placed in prison for the rest of their lives. But prisons can be broken into and broken out of as well. That's why I say that they should bring back capital punishment.
 
[QUOTE="Silent Howling]But prisons can be broken into and broken out of as well. That's why I say that they should bring back capital punishment.

[/QUOTE]
I get this but what are the chances of that? One federal prisoner escaped in 1999 but was recaptured and that's it for recent times...
 
It's because of these chances that people could get out. Over the years, these criminals will still plot and plan in order to escape. Over the years, the people guarding the prisons will get far too relaxed without even knowing it and that is when disaster can strike.
 
Although over the years security will get better and even if the guards do slack they wont even have to use as much effort in the first place. As technology advances, chances of a successful plan being formed will decrease.
 
As technology advances, people get stupider and lazier, putting the odds in the criminal's favor. Because since they have so much time, they will probably exercise whilst the guards will be lounging around. Not a particularly good thing.
 
By that logic though wouldn't the prisoners also get dumber and lazier? Making them not intelligent enough to come up with a plan that makes sense or to lazy to bother in the first place?
 
No death no no, bad thing. To kill when you put someone away for doing it. Arnt you just rising to their level?
 
No, you are not. You are fighting for survival. To stand by and allow others to murder without a punishment equal to the crime amounts to giving up the right to live.


Here is a simpler crime to consider:


A. Someone steals something. You steal it back and return it to the rightful owner. Was your theft wrong? Or perhaps that is too easy an example. Make that something land taken in a war. What is taken along with that land are its people. You go in and take them back - perhaps at the cost of lives on both sides. Was that right or wrong?


Still too easy?


A group struggling against oppression decides to stand against and declares war - freedom from that oppression. The cost on both sides is blood - lives. Is that wrong? Let me give you a hint: No nation has ever been secured without the force of arms in the history of mankind.


The taking of a life without good cause - with malicious intent - is a crime and must be paid for with the life of the taker. They give up any right to live once they have executed such a crime.
 
Mitheral said:
They give up any right to live once they have executed such a crime.
Click to expand...
I 100% disagree with this statement. I dont believe it is anyone's choice to say that if someone's crime is bad enough then they forfeit their rights. Sure, they have done something horrible and I'm not saying that we should automatically forgive them or anything. Im just saying that killing a human, no matter how devastating a crime, is not our choice to make.
 
And that is where we disagree. To leave them alive leaves them able to kill again and again. Being in a prison doesn't prevent that. Just the opposite. It encourages it. It places them in an environment where survival often means killing. It may not be meant to, but it does. And half the time the people killed certainly did not deserve death.


And when you look at expenses of keeping people in prison versus the cost of even a single life, I'd rather pay the electric bill for frying them. If we choose to allow them to do, THAT is at our convenience.
 
This is why I say solitary confinement. That way that cannot hurt anyone but themselves


And actually both are paid by taxes by the people but 'frying' them (Although lethal injection is more common now) actually cost millions of dollars more due to expenses on 2 trials, extensive investigations, etc..
 
Solitary confinement is fine - until that shadow of doubt I mentioned is settled. Toward that end, I don't care about the cost. By all means defend the right to life. But once all doubt is removed, death.


I can accept reducing costs by tossing aside the death penalty for cases that are note clear. But solitary confinement would be a necessity. That is as far as I care to risk the lives of other inmates and correctional officers. To me a murderer is a non person - a number and no more.
 
I believe that the Death Sentence is wrong.


We do not have the right to take away somebody's life.


Keep in mind that this is a person, murderer or not, this is a life. Each life is special, and just because a criminal can't value that, doesn't mean we shouldn't. No matter who the person is, they want to live. They want to survive, and believing that they've lost the right to breathe and live because of something they did is... Wrong. I can understand your desire to murder this person after witnessing whatever heinous act they've committed, but this murderer is a human.


"Life in prison also guarantees no future crimes."


On top of that, killing a criminal technically makes you a murderer- a criminal.


The Lethal Injection has not been proven to be painless, and some accounts state that the criminal suffers from a paralyzed respiratory system long before they are dead.


It must be terrifying to feel yourself die... Unable to move, cry out, beg.


Even though you may argue that these people are the utter filth of society, killing them is not a solution to our problems (and desires for revenge), and only legalizes a form of murder.


Interesting Links:


http://ccrjustice.org/solitary-factsheet


http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/us0406/8.htm


http://www.hrw.org/reports/2006/us0406/8.htmhtml


 
Life is life though and we all die eventually, so why not just put them out of their misery than leaving them in a cell where there is a high chance that they could be killed by inmates or even commit suicide. There is no wrong in killing something that is going to die eventually.


Like mice. They are living things and we kill them just because they annoy us, which is another way for no good reason. So where does that put us? Animals kill us and we kill them, so it's the same with humans, only we had a justice system that can easily be gotten past with lies that can be fortified.
 
honestly, some people just need to die for the betterment of the rest of society.


plain and simple.
 
[QUOTE="Silent Howling]There is no wrong in killing something that is going to die eventually.

[/QUOTE]
Hmm.. I don't mean to be petty but this logic almost makes it alright for a murderer to kill someone, which we all agree is wrong. So I disprove of this statement.
 
Of course you do. You disagree with everything I say.


I just asked a couple of people whether capital punishment should be legalised and they said that it should be brought back in every country, but the decision is up to a board of judges and not just one judge because that's when mistakes can be made and innocent people may be killed. That way some dangerous killers all over the world can be taken care of and we feel a lot safer.


In some countries this would be useful, because in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, you get shot the next day if you get death penalty, whilst in Iran I think they said it was, you would get shot instantly for being homosexual which isn't very fair.
 
Just because one dangerous killer is killed doesn't mean there aren't more dangerous killers who are juust better at covering up there messes. Capital punishment will never be able to get rid of all the serial killers so what's the point?
 
What's the point? The point is to show them that they will get caught by the FBI, or whatever other police force each country has and they will be executed to show that they won't just be in a cell for life. That is the point of all this, to make the world safer from serial killers and other offenders.
 
But why, in your opinion, doesn't prison make that point? I just don't understand why you think that prison isn't good enough. I think being in a cell for life is a pretty intimidating outcome.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Prison doesn't make that point because Prisoners are getting parol and lowered sentences, no matter what the crime they commit. And they are also not living the harsh life you claim that they are, but quite the opposite. It's not luxury, but prison's nowadays are to lax and not what they were fifty years ago, or even a couple of hundred. Crime rate was lower back then and as actually increased.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top