So now that one of the Boston Bombers is in custody, should he receive the death penalty?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Xan Krieger:
I don't think the concept of human rights matters when you're killing someone, it's only a bad thing if it takes more than hour to kill them. If they suffer a bit it doesn't matter, they're being killed anyway. Wouldn't matter to me if we had death by flamethrower if it's cheaper than a lethal injection.

I would like to direct your attention to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I would still love to hear your line of reasoning though regarding your opinions here.

Jux:

Xan Krieger:
I don't think the concept of human rights matters when you're killing someone, it's only a bad thing if it takes more than hour to kill them. If they suffer a bit it doesn't matter, they're being killed anyway. Wouldn't matter to me if we had death by flamethrower if it's cheaper than a lethal injection.

I would like to direct your attention to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I would still love to hear your line of reasoning though regarding your opinions here.

SCOTUS has declared that hanging doesn't violate the 'cruel and unusual punishment' clause, as the issue has been brought before them in the past. I believe the reason for the ruling was along the lines of 'Hanging has traditionally been the way capital punishment was administered in the States, and so it is acceptable'.

So hanging is still a cheap alternative that has been upheld by SCOTUS. Really, all five methods of execution have been upheld by SCOTUS, although hanging and firing squad are probably the cheapest.

Xan Krieger:
I don't think the concept of human rights matters when you're killing someone, it's only a bad thing if it takes more than hour to kill them. If they suffer a bit it doesn't matter, they're being killed anyway. Wouldn't matter to me if we had death by flamethrower if it's cheaper than a lethal injection.

Indeed, if you're executing a person you're already pretty much ignoring human rights. Still, to say that it "doesn't matter" if a death sentence is carried out swiftly and painless or by tigers is quite a step. If you were on death row, would you be fine knowing that in an unclear amount of time you will be slowly burned to death with a flamethrower because this method of execution saves the collective of all US taxpayers maybe 50 dollars per execution?

Kopikatsu:
So hanging is still a cheap alternative that has been upheld by SCOTUS. Really, all five methods of execution have been upheld by SCOTUS, although hanging and firing squad are probably the cheapest.

How is it cheap? What do you save? You're still going to have a lengthy waiting and appeal period to ensure you haven't made a mistake. You are still feeding them, dressing them, caring for them while they are waiting. You still have to provide a facility and employ staff for the execution, have to pay the funeral, etc., you're at best saving at the direct execution material.
Considering a lethal injection itself costs the state of Texas only $86.08 you can probably build a new prison with the savings in the year 2525 (when man is still alive).

EDIT: My bad, I used an older source. Since July 2012 it now costs the state of Texas $1286.86 per injection since Danish manufacturer Lundbeck has refused to supply their pentobarbital to US prisons. One wonders how the next best source is 15 times more expensive.

Xan Krieger:
I don't think the concept of human rights matters when you're killing someone, it's only a bad thing if it takes more than hour to kill them. If they suffer a bit it doesn't matter, they're being killed anyway. Wouldn't matter to me if we had death by flamethrower if it's cheaper than a lethal injection.

Still applying all this to the wrongfully sentenced, I hope? Y'know, the acceptable collateral damage? Their deaths being needlessly painful has to be a-okay, too.

Quaxar:

How is it cheap? What do you save? You're still going to have a lengthy waiting and appeal period to ensure you haven't made a mistake. You are still feeding them, dressing them, caring for them while they are waiting. You still have to provide a facility and employ staff for the execution, have to pay the funeral, etc., you're at best saving at the direct execution material.
Considering a lethal injection itself costs the state of Texas only $86.08 you can probably build a new prison with the savings in the year 2525 (when man is still alive).

There should only be two sentences for a felony. Life with parole, and death. Why? Well, if the purpose of the justice system is rehabilitation and not revenge, then indeterminate sentencing like we currently have doesn't ensure that they're rehabilitated. What if they're sentenced to 10-15 years but reform after three years, but then the other eight years simply ensures that whatever life they might have been able to salvage outside of prison is ruined; and that they become a more hardened criminal as a result of the combination of hopeless and just what occurs in prison? What if they're not reformed after fifteen but are still released, and just go on to commit a worse crime than they'd originally gone in for? (Recidivism rates are ridiculously high. Somewhere around ~70% if I remember correctly.)

Life with parole for all felony charges allows for the actual sentence to better fit the crime. If the inmate reforms, then they're released. If they do not, then they are not. As incentive, if the Commissioner of the Parole Commission lets someone go free and they're convicted of another felony, then the commissioner that granted the parole is charged with a first degree misdemeanor. Any crime that is considered heinous enough to warrant a life without parole sentence with the current system will instead be charged to death. They get two appeals over the course of five years with the second occurring two and a half years after the first. If they're unsuccessful both times, then they're put to death immediately. Second time someone is convicted of a felony charge it's upgraded to a death sentence.

Many of the problems with the prison system, such as gang violence and smuggling, are directly attributed to overcrowding. The average cost of a LWOP sentence is $1.5 million. Average cost of a death sentence is $2.5 million. We have roughly 140,610 prisoners serving a LWOP sentence as of four years ago and 3,146 serving a death sentence as of last year. $218,780,000,000 being the total cost of those. Replace it with my system, and suddenly billions of dollars are saved. Prison populations are greatly reduced, so the prisons can be demolished and replaced with other structures (which opens up a whole world of possibilities for the surrounding area due to the zoning restrictions on prisons), many less correctional officers are needed to keep the inmates inline, police resources are freed up due to not needing to invest so heavily in investigating crimes that occur in/around prisons, crime hits all time lows, recidivism rates hit all time lows, funds can be reappropriated to areas that desperately need it, etc.

This here is the key concept: Life without parole is a death sentence already. The difference is that it serves no purpose. The court has decided that the person can never rejoin society ever again because of how heinous their crimes were. So they stick them in a tiny box until they die. How is that more humane than just putting them out of their misery?

Kopikatsu:
There should only be two sentences for a felony. Life with parole, and death. Why? Well, if the purpose of the justice system is rehabilitation and not revenge, then indeterminate sentencing like we currently have doesn't ensure that they're rehabilitated. What if they're sentenced to 10-15 years but reform after three years, but then the other eight years simply ensures that whatever life they might have been able to salvage outside of prison is ruined; and that they become a more hardened criminal as a result of the combination of hopeless and just what occurs in prison? What if they're not reformed after fifteen but are still released, and just go on to commit a worse crime than they'd originally gone in for? (Recidivism rates are ridiculously high. Somewhere around ~70% if I remember correctly.)

Life with parole for all felony charges allows for the actual sentence to better fit the crime. If the inmate reforms, then they're released. If they do not, then they are not. As incentive, if the Commissioner of the Parole Commission lets someone go free and they're convicted of another felony, then the commissioner that granted the parole is charged with a first degree misdemeanor. Any crime that is considered heinous enough to warrant a life without parole sentence with the current system will instead be charged to death. They get two appeals over the course of five years with the second occurring two and a half years after the first. If they're unsuccessful both times, then they're put to death immediately. Second time someone is convicted of a felony charge it's upgraded to a death sentence.

Many of the problems with the prison system, such as gang violence and smuggling, are directly attributed to overcrowding. The average cost of a LWOP sentence is $1.5 million. Average cost of a death sentence is $2.5 million. We have roughly 140,610 prisoners serving a LWOP sentence as of four years ago and 3,146 serving a death sentence as of last year. $218,780,000,000 being the total cost of those. Replace it with my system, and suddenly billions of dollars are saved. Prison populations are greatly reduced, so the prisons can be demolished and replaced with other structures (which opens up a whole world of possibilities for the surrounding area due to the zoning restrictions on prisons), many less correctional officers are needed to keep the inmates inline, police resources are freed up due to not needing to invest so heavily in investigating crimes that occur in/around prisons, crime hits all time lows, recidivism rates hit all time lows, funds can be reappropriated to areas that desperately need it, etc.

This here is the key concept: Life without parole is a death sentence already. The difference is that it serves no purpose. The court has decided that the person can never rejoin society ever again because of how heinous their crimes were. So they stick them in a tiny box until they die. How is that more humane than just putting them out of their misery?

I agree the US prison system is in dire need of major reformations, however your "kill them, kill them all!" solution seems to be the worst possible one. This is getting way offtopic though.

Please also note my edit in the post above.

Kopikatsu:

This here is the key concept: Life without parole is a death sentence already. The difference is that it serves no purpose. The court has decided that the person can never rejoin society ever again because of how heinous their crimes were. So they stick them in a tiny box until they die. How is that more humane than just putting them out of their misery?

I'll actually agree on the first part; life without parole is indeed a death penalty. Well, in a manner of speaking, anyway, but I get your point.

But, you've missed another key difference. Somebody in prison, later found innocent, can be released.

Life after a conviction can be hellish, as you pointed out before, when trying to argue that killing the convicted was a mercy. I'm sure those with families, and the families themselves, would find that conclusion somewhat simplistic and heartless.

Kopikatsu:

Jux:

Xan Krieger:
I don't think the concept of human rights matters when you're killing someone, it's only a bad thing if it takes more than hour to kill them. If they suffer a bit it doesn't matter, they're being killed anyway. Wouldn't matter to me if we had death by flamethrower if it's cheaper than a lethal injection.

I would like to direct your attention to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I would still love to hear your line of reasoning though regarding your opinions here.

SCOTUS has declared that hanging doesn't violate the 'cruel and unusual punishment' clause, as the issue has been brought before them in the past. I believe the reason for the ruling was along the lines of 'Hanging has traditionally been the way capital punishment was administered in the States, and so it is acceptable'.

So hanging is still a cheap alternative that has been upheld by SCOTUS. Really, all five methods of execution have been upheld by SCOTUS, although hanging and firing squad are probably the cheapest.

Whats your point? I'm going to go ahead and highlight the part of Xan's post I was making reference to. I would say that death by flamethrower would fall under cruel and unusual.

Silvanus:

I'll actually agree on the first part; life without parole is indeed a death penalty. Well, in a manner of speaking, anyway, but I get your point.

But, you've missed another key difference. Somebody in prison, later found innocent, can be released.

Life after a conviction can be hellish, as you pointed out before, when trying to argue that killing the convicted was a mercy. I'm sure those with families, and the families themselves, would find that conclusion somewhat simplistic and heartless.

The options aren't 'Take a chance of killing innocent people' and 'Don't take a chance of killing innocent people'. It's 'Take a chance of killing innocent people' and 'Let innocent people die/suffer through inaction'. Here's an example of what I'm talking about.

But regardless, the feelings of the victim's loved ones aren't/shouldn't be considered for the same reason we don't let victims decide the punishment of the convicted criminal.

Kopikatsu:

The options aren't 'Take a chance of killing innocent people' and 'Don't take a chance of killing innocent people'. It's 'Take a chance of killing innocent people' and 'Let innocent people die/suffer through inaction'.

I'm not sure I understand. Is your point that when innocent people are wrongfully sentenced and imprisoned rather than killed, they suffer (and may die) in prison?

The options are, "Kill the guilty, and, as collateral damage, kill the innocent"; or, "Imprison the guilty, and, as collateral damage, imprison the innocent, who may then be released if found innocent at a later date". At which time, of course, many could (and do) reunite with families & children.

Kopikatsu:

But regardless, the feelings of the victim's loved ones aren't/shouldn't be considered for the same reason we don't let victims decide the punishment of the convicted criminal.

This is a false parallel. Nobody's suggesting that we let the victim's family decide anything. What do you mean, "shouldn't be considered"? The impact on the victim's family is an incredibly big part of the impact of a murder. Nobody's suggesting we let the family call any shots here. But, when the question is put forward of whether or not we condone the killing of innocents as collateral damage, I'm not going to ignore a huge part of the impact that has.

You're arguing that, "the unnecessary and intentional killing of an innocent is acceptable, and the impact on that innocent's family is acceptable, so long as we feel justified in doing it". It's functionally identical to murder. At least have the cojones to admit that.

Jux:

Xan Krieger:
I don't think the concept of human rights matters when you're killing someone, it's only a bad thing if it takes more than hour to kill them. If they suffer a bit it doesn't matter, they're being killed anyway. Wouldn't matter to me if we had death by flamethrower if it's cheaper than a lethal injection.

I would like to direct your attention to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I would still love to hear your line of reasoning though regarding your opinions here.

So we just need to amend that, we've changed the constitution before.

Xan Krieger:

Jux:

Xan Krieger:
I don't think the concept of human rights matters when you're killing someone, it's only a bad thing if it takes more than hour to kill them. If they suffer a bit it doesn't matter, they're being killed anyway. Wouldn't matter to me if we had death by flamethrower if it's cheaper than a lethal injection.

I would like to direct your attention to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I would still love to hear your line of reasoning though regarding your opinions here.

So we just need to amend that, we've changed the constitution before.

You think the only justice for murder is death, but you can't explain why. Is asking for a reason as to why we should allow cruel and unusual punishment too much to ask as well?

Quaxar:

Xan Krieger:
I don't think the concept of human rights matters when you're killing someone, it's only a bad thing if it takes more than hour to kill them. If they suffer a bit it doesn't matter, they're being killed anyway. Wouldn't matter to me if we had death by flamethrower if it's cheaper than a lethal injection.

Indeed, if you're executing a person you're already pretty much ignoring human rights. Still, to say that it "doesn't matter" if a death sentence is carried out swiftly and painless or by tigers is quite a step. If you were on death row, would you be fine knowing that in an unclear amount of time you will be slowly burned to death with a flamethrower because this method of execution saves the collective of all US taxpayers maybe 50 dollars per execution?

Kopikatsu:
So hanging is still a cheap alternative that has been upheld by SCOTUS. Really, all five methods of execution have been upheld by SCOTUS, although hanging and firing squad are probably the cheapest.

How is it cheap? What do you save? You're still going to have a lengthy waiting and appeal period to ensure you haven't made a mistake. You are still feeding them, dressing them, caring for them while they are waiting. You still have to provide a facility and employ staff for the execution, have to pay the funeral, etc., you're at best saving at the direct execution material.
Considering a lethal injection itself costs the state of Texas only $86.08 you can probably build a new prison with the savings in the year 2525 (when man is still alive).

EDIT: My bad, I used an older source. Since July 2012 it now costs the state of Texas $1286.86 per injection since Danish manufacturer Lundbeck has refused to supply their pentobarbital to US prisons. One wonders how the next best source is 15 times more expensive.

Because it wasn't the next in line, it was like 13 down. There were plenty alternatives in Sweden and Germany but it's not so much a Danish decision to cut off supplies to American prisons as it's a European decision. Which I happened to agree with since not supporting the death penalty but exporting electric chairs and lethal drugs seemed rather hypocritical.

TKretts3:
The death penalty is good in theory

What about it is good? What good does it accomplish? Making you feel better?

Jux:

Xan Krieger:

Jux:

I would like to direct your attention to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I would still love to hear your line of reasoning though regarding your opinions here.

So we just need to amend that, we've changed the constitution before.

You think the only justice for murder is death, but you can't explain why. Is asking for a reason as to why we should allow cruel and unusual punishment too much to ask as well?

If it saves money and we have economic problems, sure it won't save much but every little bit helps.

Hafrael:

TKretts3:
The death penalty is good in theory

What about it is good? What good does it accomplish? Making you feel better?

1. It frees up a cell for someone else
2. Frees us from feeding and providing shelter to someone who has been judged to not deserve it
3. Is a more fitting punishment than life in prison

Xan Krieger:

1. It frees up a cell for someone else
2. Frees us from feeding and providing shelter to someone who has been judged to not deserve it
3. Is a more fitting punishment than life in prison

Judged to not deserve life?

I don't understand this at all.

Hafrael:

Xan Krieger:

1. It frees up a cell for someone else
2. Frees us from feeding and providing shelter to someone who has been judged to not deserve it
3. Is a more fitting punishment than life in prison

Judged to not deserve life?

I don't understand this at all.

Basically I'm saying the death penalty, if the court says you deserve it then why shouldn't we have it as an option?

Xan Krieger:

Hafrael:

Xan Krieger:

1. It frees up a cell for someone else
2. Frees us from feeding and providing shelter to someone who has been judged to not deserve it
3. Is a more fitting punishment than life in prison

Judged to not deserve life?

I don't understand this at all.

Basically I'm saying the death penalty, if the court says you deserve it then why shouldn't we have it as an option?

Because no one deserves it.

Unless you believe that the justice system is to enact revenge and not rehabilitation.

Hafrael:

Xan Krieger:

Hafrael:

Judged to not deserve life?

I don't understand this at all.

Basically I'm saying the death penalty, if the court says you deserve it then why shouldn't we have it as an option?

Because no one deserves it.

Unless you believe that the justice system is to enact revenge and not rehabilitation.

They rehabilitate people who deserve to be rehabilitated, not very well but our prison system does need some big changes. Some people are beyond redemption, for them there is the death penalty.

Xan Krieger:
They rehabilitate people who deserve to be rehabilitated, not very well but our prison system does need some big changes. Some people are beyond redemption, for them there is the death penalty.

Redemption is not the word we use for a reason. If they can exist as a law abiding citizen then they have been rehabilitated. Anyone has the possibility of being a law abiding citizen again.

Hafrael:

Xan Krieger:
They rehabilitate people who deserve to be rehabilitated, not very well but our prison system does need some big changes. Some people are beyond redemption, for them there is the death penalty.

Redemption is not the word we use for a reason. If they can exist as a law abiding citizen then they have been rehabilitated. Anyone has the possibility of being a law abiding citizen again.

Except the ones judged to not deserve to become law abiding citizens again (or living citizens for much that matter).

Xan Krieger:

Hafrael:

Xan Krieger:
They rehabilitate people who deserve to be rehabilitated, not very well but our prison system does need some big changes. Some people are beyond redemption, for them there is the death penalty.

Redemption is not the word we use for a reason. If they can exist as a law abiding citizen then they have been rehabilitated. Anyone has the possibility of being a law abiding citizen again.

Except the ones judged to not deserve to become law abiding citizens again (or living citizens for much that matter).

Then the justice system is not about rehabilitation but revenge.

Xan Krieger:
So we just need to amend that, we've changed the constitution before.

I am so going to quote you on this whenever any kind of amendment thumping comes up around here.

Xan Krieger:
Some people are beyond redemption.

"Some" people. Now that's an incredibly vague way to describe it.

Hafrael:

Xan Krieger:

Hafrael:

Redemption is not the word we use for a reason. If they can exist as a law abiding citizen then they have been rehabilitated. Anyone has the possibility of being a law abiding citizen again.

Except the ones judged to not deserve to become law abiding citizens again (or living citizens for much that matter).

Then the justice system is not about rehabilitation but revenge.

The thing is that the justice system is not only about rehab. It's also about keeping society safe and crime deterrence. The risk you encounter by allowing hardcore criminals to roam free again is that the odds they go do something horrible again is deemed to high. It's not that we believe they can't become law abiding citizens again but that the odds aren't high and if he or she fails to, the consequences for society would be horrible. And there is also the logic that criminals might be deterred to commit crimes if they know death is awaiting them instead of say 15 years. (However, it must be noted that due to their nature this doesn't really apply to every criminal, a terrorist like the one of the Boston bombings is obviously not deterred by death. But your typical mugger or robber might decide not to add the murder of a person on his record because he wants to live)

And let's also not forget that while the justice system itself might not be about revenge people still like revenge and this will spill onto the justice system.

generals3:
However, it must be noted that due to their nature this doesn't really apply to every criminal, a terrorist like the one of the Boston bombings is obviously not deterred by death. But your typical mugger or robber might decide not to add the murder of a person on his record because he wants to live

That doesn't work. As a rule, nobody is going to say "well, I'll only be locked in some hellhole for 15 years if I get caught, that's not so bad".

Beyond a certain limit, it's not the punishment its the (apparent) chances of being punished. Higher conviction rates are better than harsher punishments, IMHO.

thaluikhain:

generals3:
However, it must be noted that due to their nature this doesn't really apply to every criminal, a terrorist like the one of the Boston bombings is obviously not deterred by death. But your typical mugger or robber might decide not to add the murder of a person on his record because he wants to live

That doesn't work. As a rule, nobody is going to say "well, I'll only be locked in some hellhole for 15 years if I get caught, that's not so bad".

Beyond a certain limit, it's not the punishment its the (apparent) chances of being punished. Higher conviction rates are better than harsher punishments, IMHO.

Sure, it does get a bit a bit messy after a while, that's why i used the word "might". But the thing is that it is hard to determine when sentences have reached their "cap". I mean, does it stop deterring after 10 years? 15 years? 25 years? Etc. Obviously every justice system in the world has different standards.

generals3:
Sure, it does get a bit a bit messy after a while, that's why i used the word "might". But the thing is that it is hard to determine when sentences have reached their "cap". I mean, does it stop deterring after 10 years? 15 years? 25 years? Etc. Obviously every justice system in the world has different standards.

That's true, though nothing to stop you banging a few extra years on to be sure. Still a long way short of execution.

Xan Krieger:
If it saves money and we have economic problems, sure it won't save much but every little bit helps.

Are you fucking with me, or is this a real argument?

Xan Krieger:
Some people are beyond redemption, for them there is the death penalty.

Like anyone convicted of murder ever?

Hafrael:

TKretts3:
The death penalty is good in theory

What about it is good? What good does it accomplish? Making you feel better?

If you're the type of person who is okay with taking the lives of other people who meant you no harm, then you don't deserve to keep yours. It's better we eliminate the threat then give it another chance. It may just use that other chance for further retaliation. Besides, as others have said, if he lives we have to take care of him, and he takes up room in prison which could be used for more deserving people.

Of course, as I said, it's good in theory. In practice there is a chance that innocent people could be put to death. I would only want the death penalty if it were provable beyond a shadow of a doubt that he did it.

TKretts3:

If you're the type of person who is okay with taking the lives of other people who meant you no harm, then you don't deserve to keep yours.

You get there is a certain irony to this statement?

generals3:
And there is also the logic that criminals might be deterred to commit crimes if they know death is awaiting them instead of say 15 years.

I'm just going to leave these here:
image

Doesn't look like much deterrence to me. And much less if you consider that since the 90s murder has been constantly higher in states with death penalty and the gap is growing.
image

Xan Krieger:

1. It frees up a cell for someone else
2. Frees us from feeding and providing shelter to someone who has been judged to not deserve it
3. Is a more fitting punishment than life in prison

Again, this has to be the most sociopathic solution for the US prison system I have ever heard. So you'd rather kill everyone instead of investing in preventing crime in the first place, changing the way the prison system treats criminals and thusly lower relapses or abolish the three-strike system, the most moronic idea since Two-Face's coin justice?

EDIT:
Also, have a TED talk:

Im sorry, but death pentaly?

He is 19 years old.

So your essentially saying that he isn't even the age to buy a beer, yet he is old enough to be sentenced to death?

If he is proven Guilty without a doubt, should he spend the rest of his life in prison? Of course, consequences etc.

But death?

As far as I am concerned he isn't even an adult.

Shouting and saying he should be killed or tortured make you no better than him or his older brother.

Edit:

Quaxar:

Again, this has to be the most sociopathic solution for the US prison system I have ever heard. So you'd rather kill everyone instead of investing in preventing crime in the first place, changing the way the prison system treats criminals and thusly lower relapses or abolish the three-strike system, the most moronic idea since Two-Face's coin justice?

To be completely fair.....at least they have a 50/50 chance with that. =D

TKretts3:

If you're the type of person who is okay with taking the lives of other people who meant you no harm, then you don't deserve to keep yours.

The dude that got executed half the world away meant me no harm, so naturally I am not okay with taking his life.

It's better we eliminate the threat then give it another chance. It may just use that other chance for further retaliation.

Yeah well, I'd rather not live in a system that imprisons/executes people for what they might do.

Besides, as others have said, if he lives we have to take care of him, and he takes up room in prison which could be used for more deserving people.

Wait, people more deserving of prison...?

Knight Templar:

TKretts3:

If you're the type of person who is okay with taking the lives of other people who meant you no harm, then you don't deserve to keep yours.

You get there is a certain irony to this statement?

Ah, I was beaten to it. But, still, yeah.

TKretts3:
If you're the type of person who is okay with taking the lives of other people who meant you no harm, then you don't deserve to keep yours.

And how do you identify these 'types'? Do you consider yourself a good person? What are the qualities of a good person? Do you always embody these qualities? If not, how can you consider yourself a good person? How do you even determine if someone who murders is 'ok' with their choice? You don't have to answer if you don't want, but I believe it's worth thinking about. I would venture to say that people do not come in 'types'. People are always in flux.

Vegosiux:

TKretts3:

If you're the type of person who is okay with taking the lives of other people who meant you no harm, then you don't deserve to keep yours.

The dude that got executed half the world away meant me no harm, so naturally I am not okay with taking his life.

It's better we eliminate the threat then give it another chance. It may just use that other chance for further retaliation.

Yeah well, I'd rather not live in a system that imprisons/executes people for what they might do.

Besides, as others have said, if he lives we have to take care of him, and he takes up room in prison which could be used for more deserving people.

Wait, people more deserving of prison...?

Knight Templar:

TKretts3:

If you're the type of person who is okay with taking the lives of other people who meant you no harm, then you don't deserve to keep yours.

You get there is a certain irony to this statement?

Ah, I was beaten to it. But, still, yeah.

I think, and forgive me if I'm wrong on this, his point is that if prison IS meant to rehabilitate, to in some rough and ready fashion take a criminal and turn them back into a productive member of society, then by removing those who cannot be rehabilitated you allow for more of those who can be.

As I mentioned before, we do not get a free pass on humanity because we are born human. Humanity is something constantly earned and lost throughout our lives. It's why I'm sure people in here would consider the rich 'inhuman' for their actions or the religious 'inhuman' for their beliefs, as much as their are people who consider the poor 'inhuman' for their status.

We are not born with humanity but given the chance to have it, and when you use that chance to kill, or worse, then you've used your chance up. All we get is a chance. Not a benison. Unless he is proven to be truly and incurably insane, that is, pyroland levels of insanity where is incapable of understanding what is going on around him, then he actively made the choice to do this. He cannot say he was coerced; that's an excuse, not an alibi. He cannot say he felt he had no other choices; again, an excuse, not an alibi. If he was capable of making rational decisions, if he is not crippling insane, and he perpetuated the acts, then he is guilty. It does not matter why he did something, only that the act was committed (except again, crippling insanity).

If he is guilty, he should be punished to the full extent of the law. That's all there is to it. The thread is asking if he should receive it; should is immaterial. If the law of that state says that there is no capital offense, then he should not be punished in that manner, but instead to the full extent of the states law, which I believe in this case is probably multiple life sentences.

I feel like I should post a 'lawful neutral' image here because I'm posterboying it...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked