Would you support Capital Punishment for cases like these?
Yes
19.8% (18)
19.8% (18)
No
74.7% (68)
74.7% (68)
Maybe
5.5% (5)
5.5% (5)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Question for all Anti-Death Penalty Folks

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

Not sure where you're going with this. People in America know we have the death penalty. They know that some states have it and some states don't. Some states enforce it, and some don't. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, the fact remains that some people refuse to take responsibility for their actions and continue to commit crimes.

It's not a perfect solution, but its a solution nonetheless. You're not killing anyone. You simply drop them on an island to fend for themselves. If they live, its on them. If they die, its on them. But again: Society should not be forced to continually support violent criminals with no interest in rejoining society. If you think that makes me a bad person, I'm okay with that.

mavkiel:
Falls under acceptable losses. Getting rid of such people promptly, not having to feed/cloth/shelter/guard dangerous individuals is worth it.

Also, lets not forget that at least a few people are probably deterred from committing these acts. (For example a bank robber deciding to not use a gun or a mugger realizing he shouldn't just shoot his victims.)

Are you responding to the post above you? I'm trying to figure out if you're referring to killing innocent people as 'acceptable losses'.

Hop-along Nussbaum:
Not sure where you're going with this. People in America know we have the death penalty. They know that some states have it and some states don't. Some states enforce it, and some don't. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, the fact remains that some people refuse to take responsibility for their actions and continue to commit crimes.

It's not a perfect solution, but its a solution nonetheless. You're not killing anyone. You simply drop them on an island to fend for themselves. If they live, its on them. If they die, its on them. But again: Society should not be forced to continually support violent criminals with no interest in rejoining society. If you think that makes me a bad person, I'm okay with that.

Where I am going with it? I am going with it that is is inhumane. It is beneath us, and innocents will suffer.
Also, you have no frikkin' idea that these people (robbers, murderers, rapists, assault...ers?) are NOT willing to rejoin society, or be able to be rehabilitated. You are simply wrong here, and you lack proof.

But since we are talking make-believe fantasy scenarios, here is mine; All women in the world should be forced to take a drug that renders them without free will, and then sexually serve me. They should also be dressed in gothic BDSM-gear, because it suits my fancy.
All other men should be killed.
Since they have no free will, I can make them believe that they are happy. And thus, the entire world is happy. I have solved every problem in the world, by rendering everyone without free will.

Now, if that makes me a bad person, I'm okay with that.

And there it is. Going completely off in left field because you cannot or will not see what has already been said. It's a hypothetical solution. If the issue is whether or not innocents will suffer, then fine. No convictions unless there is incontrovertible proof based on DNA evidence. Holy Jeezus, shit fire and save matches. Is that better?

You're upset about a hypothetical situation based on a movie scenario. Get a grip.

If you're wondering whether or not I support the death penalty, yes. I do. There are certain people in this world who do not belong here. Those who would rape and butcher innocent people. Those who do evil deeds without cause. Those people have no place in our society.

Since we're making up crazy hypotheticals. Try this on for size. Would you rather parole 100 violent sex offenders and child murderers, and once they're paroled, take all of their NEW crimes and all of their NEW victims on your conscience, just to save the life of one person? Would you let another person be murdered by a paroled criminal, or let another child be butchered by a paroled sex offender, just so you can say that you didn't execute an innocent person?

The problem is that once you eliminate the death penalty, then you must consider parole an option. Otherwise, you're forcing society to perpetually care for people that it no longer has a use for. That kind of burden does not sit well with me. Violent criminals and sex offenders are like a tumor that should be cut out and cast aside. And occasionally, when cutting out the tumor, you cut out a little extra tissue to make sure you got it all.

That opinion may bother you. But that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I don't expect you to agree.

Hop-along Nussbaum:
Since we're making up crazy hypotheticals. Try this on for size. Would you rather parole 100 violent sex offenders and child murderers, and once they're paroled, take all of their NEW crimes and all of their NEW victims on your conscience, just to save the life of one person? Would you let another person be murdered by a paroled criminal, or let another child be butchered by a paroled sex offender, just so you can say that you didn't execute an innocent person?

False dichotomy. No one here is advocating that violent offenders must be paroled. Hell, I don't even see all the anti death penalty folks arguing for rehabilitation.

Hop-along Nussbaum:
The problem is that once you eliminate the death penalty, then you must consider parole an option.

No you don't. I would say parole should be considered an option once it is deemed by professionals that someone has both served their time and is ready to reenter society.

Hop-along Nussbaum:
Otherwise, you're forcing society to perpetually care for people that it no longer has a use for.

Sorry, but until we have the ability to see into the future and determine who will and who will not be a repeat offender, you can't say with certainty who is useless to society.

Hop-along Nussbaum:
That kind of burden does not sit well with me. Violent criminals and sex offenders are like a tumor that should be cut out and cast aside. And occasionally, when cutting out the tumor, you cut out a little extra tissue to make sure you got it all.

That's your justification for the chance of killing an innocent person? Sickening.

Hop-along Nussbaum:
That opinion may bother you. But that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I don't expect you to agree.

It does, you are, and I don't. I'm thankful that the western world is moving away from such thinking.

Hop-along Nussbaum:
And there it is. Going completely off in left field because you cannot or will not see what has already been said. It's a hypothetical solution. If the issue is whether or not innocents will suffer, then fine. No convictions unless there is incontrovertible proof based on DNA evidence. Holy Jeezus, shit fire and save matches. Is that better?

No, because DNA-evidence isn't 100% foolproof, and isn't always present. There IS no 100% foolproof way, and since you have extended your Island to all violent-offenders, and not just murderers, then a shit-lot of people are going to end up there that do not belong there.

But you know what? I'm pro Death-penalty too. In theory. I 100% agree that if we could prove, with 100% clarity, (with, say, Magic) that someone is guilty of murder, and that this person would not be able to be rehabilitated (again, 100% clarity), and we could do this right at court (thus avoiding the situations where it costs ten times as much to kill them than to stick them in for life, due to judicial processes and appeals) then I have no problem offing them. They would not contribute to society. They would be a burden. Hell, I'll even go down to 98% certainty, or any % you want, as long as the cost in human life (and how the hell can we measure that, really?), production lost due to possible rehabilitation, etc, etc, is less than the cost of keeping them alive, times the % that we are right. It's basic Risk Analysis. Benefit and Loss x Chance of Outcome. If Benefit x Chance is higher than Loss x Chance, we go for it.
If you can prove that, then I'm game.
But. We. Can't. We can't even be reasonably fucking close.

And the main reason I reject and make fun of your hypothetical scenario?
It would be rejected by the public. It would be considered "cruel and unusual", among the least of things, and is even less feasible than the death-penalty.

Hop-along Nussbaum:
Regardless of your opinion on the matter, the fact remains that some people refuse to take responsibility for their actions and continue to commit crimes.

I like how you used "some people". Because that provides with an even more reliable solution.

We kill ALL the people (or dump all the people on a deserted island). Just to be sure we got all of the bad guys. Because you know, some people commit crimes without ever having been in prison. And just to be sure, we have to include those people who have never been in prison...since there's criminals among those too.

I think that convicted murderers should be supplied with a gun with a single bullet in it (figuratively, of course).
If they would rather die than spend decades in jail, they die, and everyone is happy. If not, they live their lives in jail, and everyone but them is happy.
Easy peasy.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked