Capital punishment! HaHaHa!

I heard it mentioned that horrid rap music makes somebody almost believe in capital punishment. Who was it? Why don't you like the death penalty? I think it isn't used enough in America, but at least we have it.

on a side note, if you offically desert from the US Army, you can be HUNG! The military doesn't have to follow the 8th amendment about cruel and unusual punishment.

 

I personally like the death penalty. Glad I live in Alabama.

This subject should really get a debate started.

 

so do i!!!!
and i live in the state that executes more than anybody :bang:

 

That's because y'all have more folks that need executing.

An observation that I have made is this:
Ever notice that most people who are anti-executions are pro-abortion?

(That should also get something going)

 

perhaps they do not know the differences between a bad seed and a good one?

 

Death sentance is a tricky one.

What if they are innocent?

I am surprised that a country that has the 'right to life' so sacredly enshrined in its Constitution allows people to be put to death...

 

as a deterrent the death penalty obviously dosnt work.

The usa has one of the highest murder rates in the western world.

 

True but I think that is more related to the right of bearing arms in the US

 

Oh boy...

Nah - the gun ownership certainly pushes up death by gunshot, but not necessarily murder rates overall...

But anyway, that is not this discussion - gun ownership is a whole different kettle of fish, which we are still arguing elsewhere...

 

And many people that are against abortion are pro executions. :cry:

I for my part am against death penalty as well as against abortion, since I consider that it's not about us humans to decide upon life and death.

 

Nope, not really.
Although I can see that there would be a certain kind of 'Liberal' who is against taking a human's life, but for giving pregnant women the right to choose whether or not to prevent a human's life beginning. :roll:

Some folks are just... inconsistant.

 

i think thats because he is discussing opinion in america, this side of the water abortion isnt really an issue(not in the uk anyway).

 

Just about as inconsistant as the American policy to approve of the death penalty and denounce abortion. On one side it's OK to take a criminal's life (even if he turns out innocent), but on the other it's very bad to take an unborn child's life (which is usually done before one can truly speak of a human being). Wouldn't you agree?

There's two sides of me versus capital punishment - a rational and an emotional one. My rational side says the death penalty is wrong because it ends a person's life, even if he is innocent nothing can be done about it, and these people are all too often proven innocent. Also it doesn't give anyone a second chance, and arguably it isn't even the worst penalty around, either (lifelong imprisonment, taken literally, is nothing but a prolonged death sentence). My emotional side on the other hand says certain criminals deserve only death and aren't worth the cost of a life spent in prison. It all seems to depend on whether you think of humans as inherently good (against), or bad (for), or neither (indifferent).

 

I disagree.

Abortion is quite a big issue in the U.K. (Though not as big as in the U.S. Granted)

It nearly became (and might still yet) an election issue.

 

I am a firm believer of death penalty as an available punishment for all crimes. I base this on the fact, that the discussion on death penalty has two sides - the academic and the practical.

The academic discussion only deals with wheter it is justifyable to kill someone as a mean of punishment, and the question of guilt has no relevance here, since all the criminals in an academic discussion are by default guilty, and the justice system is infallable.
In this discussion, one must weigh the wellbeing of the masses over the wellbeing of a criminal. The criminal, by default, are inferior to all other humans, and can therefore rightfully be treated worse than real humans. The academic discussion therefore concentrates on how the criminal can be of most use to the public.
Allowng them a normal life, even though it may be beneficiary for the economy, is not for the wellbeing of the masses, since the masses will feel a lack of trust, which will lead to anarchy. The criminals must therefore first of all be seperated from real humans.
The practical purpose for them to serve in isolation is that of test subjects for pharmaceutical and medical products. That should be the primary use of criminals, since they will still contribute to the wellbeing of the masses. The problem here is, that after some time, the criminals will die from the testing (since the tests must continue as long as they are possible) - thus, death penalty. There will be some cases where the criminal is not suitable for medical experiments, in which case the cheapest way of killing them is through starvation (since this only requires the use of a room with a dor that locks).

The practical question is that of guilt. It is well-known that people have been - and still are being - convicted for crimes they have not comitted. There are certainly cases where the sentence can be deemed doubtful, but where there is a good enough chance for the prisoner to be sentenced. There are, however, cases where the matter of guilt cannot be questioned, and these arethe cases where death penalty could - and should - be used.

(Oh, and by the way, I'm pro-abortion too).

Christian

 

Now, call me a liberal if you will, but this seems a tad harsh.

 

Why? By comitting the crime, they are no longer suited to be a part of society, since they have proven incapable of living up the rules of society. Through this failure, they have proven to be inferior.

Christian

 

Just a touch!

I have to admit that if someone seriously harmed or killed my wife, child or other close relative I woud want them dead. I also believe that there are some crimes so vile that the death penalty is the appropriate punnishment. Having said that I am against the death penalty for the sole and simple reason that to many innocent men and women have gone and continue to go to the gallows/chair etc. I do believe though that life in prison should be life not the farcical 15 years it seems to work out at now.

 

I agree entirely.

The fact is, wanting someone dead because he has emotionally hurt you is no grounds for the justice system in modern countries to sentence a criminal to death. The whole point of codified law is to ensure that people don't take matters into their own hands, that vendettas and blood honor don't rule, and that independent and educated people will judge a criminal without emotions coming into play. This is also why I'm stongly opposed to jury trials, but that's a whole different matter.

Personally, I think that if lifelong imprisonment means just that, then it is the perfect punishment for the most horrible crimes; if the criminal is guilty (s)he will die in prison, miserable and unfree, and if (s)he is innocent (s)he can be set free at any point.

 

It might be relevant that Britains two most infamous murderers of recent years one (Shipman) has taken his own life, while the other (Huntley) is on double suicide watch after repeatedly expressing a wish to die rather than spend the rest of his life in gaol. Both knew/know they would/will never be released.