Capital punishment

Dragonsreach

Super Moderator
Staff member
Originally posted by mattsterbenz
It saves the state (taxpayers) a vast amount of money, and is the ultimate punishment for a crime (aside from what judgment God will make).
I\'m sorry Matt but that is a pathetic argument to make, financial considerations bear no relation as to whether someone should be executed or not.
By your statement \"Saving the Taxpayers Money\" could equally be applied to Involuntary Euthanasia for someone dependant on state financed aid for medical care.

I would hate to see an innocent human be killed for a crime he/she did not commit.
It should only be used on murder cases (or something equally terrible), and only in cases where the court has direct evidence of the suspect\'s guilt (fingerprints, body fluid evidence, caught on video, etc). A verdict obtained only by witness testimony should not result in the death penalty because there is always the chance that the witnesses could be wrong/lying/misunderstanding/etc.

Then I bring to your attention the case of
Stefan Kisko Wrongfully convicted on forensic evidence and the suppression of contradictory evidence.
 

Bill

New member
I think prison sentences should be a lot tougher. There\'s some really crazy sentencing: here last year, a guy got 3 years for getting drunk and bringing out a lighter at a petrol station. That\'s about the same as a serious rapist would get.

The prison system is by no means perfect, but I think it\'s still better than capital punishment when there is a risk (and there always will be, however small) of an innocent person being killed. The whole death row thing seems dodgy too - some people are on death row for decades, even longer than a \"life\" sentence, only to have their conviction quashed.

Some people argue that prison life is easy (Sky TV etc.), but talk to someone who\'s been locked up for a while and it\'s clear the simple loss of freedom can be pretty devastating.
 

mattsterbenz

New member
Originally posted by Dragonsreach
I\'m sorry Matt but that is a pathetic argument to make, financial considerations bear no relation as to whether someone should be executed or not.
By your statement \"Saving the Taxpayers Money\" could equally be applied to Involuntary Euthanasia for someone dependant on state financed aid for medical care.

Then I bring to your attention the case of Stefan KiskoWrongfully convicted on forensic evidence and the suppression of contradictory evidence.

Now, now, DR. Don\'t try and put words in my mouth :)

I would NEVER even consider killing anyone simply as a financial solution. Absolutely not. A convicted serial murderer is completely different from an innocent person on welfare.

Obviously there are people who are caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Every so often we hear about a convicted criminal released from jail because of new forensics technology proving his/her innocence.

I would never want the death penalty to be given to everyone like chips. A case like the one you linked would not be enough evidence, in my book. I was talking about the kinds of criminals that have bodies in their basement, or someone caught on a surveillance video committing the crime with enough clarity in the video to be definitively identified as the murderer, etc.

Now, if we have enough evidence like this I would find it completely just to euthanize the criminal. As far as the cost is concerned, it is extremely expensive to keep prisoners in jail. Why spend millions of dollars jailing a convicted serial murderer for the rest of his/her life, when the lethal injection option could be used (assuming all the evidence is like I have stated).

-Matt
 

Infidel Castro

New member
I\'m amazed that there are more Yeas than Nays, really quite amazed. Stick such serious offenders in solitary rather than kill them. Don\'t give them tellies, smokes, consoles, etc - make them live out their natural lives knowing full well that they will never taste freedom again and also that they never, ever see a luxury. Killing serious offenders is contradictory and stoooopid.
 

Einion

New member
Originally posted by Bill
The prison system is by no means perfect, but I think it\'s still better than capital punishment when there is a risk (and there always will be, however small) of an innocent person being killed.
Not as much as we tend to think if it\'s used for crimes other than the taking of a life. Serial killers, spree killers and multiple murderers are an obvious exception.


Originally posted by mattsterbenz
I voted yes. It saves the state (taxpayers) a vast amount of money, and is the ultimate punishment for a crime (aside from what judgment God will make).
That\'s one of the key points, yes.

Originally posted by mattsterbenz
It should only be used on murder cases (or something equally terrible)...
Such as? That\'s the meat of the discussion.

Murder is so hard to prove (murder, in contrast to manslaughter) it\'s not a good, just, punishment for it. I think it should be used, if we use it at all, for things where it does serve as a deterrent - things you can\'t do on the spur of the moment. I also like the idea of its use for second offences, where there\'s essentially no real possibility of anything other than deliberate intent.

It\'s not often appreciated that most killers kill just once and in many societies a lot (sometimes even the majority) of those people are not violent criminals.


Originally posted by reverend
I\'m amazed that there are more Yeas than Nays, really quite amazed.
I was quite surprised too.

Originally posted by reverend
Stick such serious offenders in solitary rather than kill them. Don\'t give them tellies, smokes, consoles, etc - make them live out their natural lives knowing full well that they will never taste freedom again and also that they never, ever see a luxury. Killing serious offenders is contradictory and stoooopid.
And long-term torture, as you\'ve outlined, is preferential?

Einion
 

Infidel Castro

New member
Torture? I think not. Solitary confinement is a means of sectioning someone off if they\'re considered dangerous - toture is what you do to a defenceless person as a show of power and malice.
 

Infidel Castro

New member
I\'ve got to go a bit further with this. In the case of killing another in self-defence (as a for instance), I would see that person put in \'normal\' jail. I would also expect to see efforts made at gauging the response of the person to assess how remorseful they might be. That\'s a good first step to seeing someone released ahead of time based on behaviour and understanding of what he/she had ultimately done, where that puts them in society and how they can re-integrate thereafter. That\'s the role of prisons in the majority of cases. If we look at the other end of the spectrum though, I would prefer to see a final \'no way out\' form of punishment (not torture :rolleyes:) that separates really dangerous people from society. THAT is a deterrent.
 

Einion

New member
Originally posted by reverend
Torture? I think not.
Opinions vary. What you described on the previous page is classed as torture, or cruel and unusual punishment - which is prohibited in most (all?) Western countries (although \'we\' ignore it when it suits us, obviously).

Amnesty International

Einion
 

Infidel Castro

New member
Pfft. It\'s still better to lock someone up in solitary confinement than stoop to the level of an eye for an eye. The simple fact is that any system will have its detractors. I get the feeling that the thread is going to turn towards a \'God alone can judge\' theme, a dangerous change of direction...

If you want to quote from my responses, try to use a broader selection of my thoughts rather than one little sentence that can be taken entirely out of context on its own.
 

ScottRadom

Shogun of Saskatchewan
Originally posted by reverend
I\'ve got to go a bit further with this. In the case of killing another in self-defence (as a for instance), I would see that person put in \'normal\' jail. I would also expect to see efforts made at gauging the response of the person to assess how remorseful they might be.

I don\'t follow this... why should a person who has killed in self defence go to jail or even be remorseful at all?

But surely we can all agree that there are extreme examples of people who definetely got to go. Here in Canada very recently a dude got on a bus and for NO REASON at all (not that there ever could be a valid reason for this) pulled out a knife and stabbed a young guy something like 50+ times. Then he cut the guys head off. Then he started to eat the victim. This is a true story, and absolutely an example of someone who has clearly checked out. There is no chance of this guy coming back man. How many therapy sessions would it take for the guy to think \"Okay, I killed and started eating a dude, but time to move forward with my life.\" This guy is done. At his initial hearing the only thing he said to the judge was \"please kill me\".

I just think it execution should be on the table as an option. Why not ged rid of this guy? Because he\'s a human being and we need to treat him as a brother? He ATE a dude. Time for him to go man.
 

El Matador

New member
Honestly i think that the death penalty serves as an easy way out and the post above shows my point. I also think that solitary confinement for life is the worst thing you can ever be sentanced with, weither or not its torture can be debated i think.
 

evil tendencies

Cake or Death?
I voted yes, with reservations. I won\'t go into details, but my religious beliefs do allow for capital punishment, so I have no problem with it in theory.

My reservation comes with the effectiveness and fairness of our legal system (I\'m American). There are so many ways for a person to be wrongly convicted, and I would rather let a guilty man go than hang an innocent man. Saddam Hussein was an instance where I had no problem with the verdict; the execution of Nazi war criminals is another. But unless it is as cut and dry as that, I\'m really not comfortable playing with someone\'s life.
 

ScottRadom

Shogun of Saskatchewan
Originally posted by El Matador
Honestly i think that the death penalty serves as an easy way out and the post above shows my point. I also think that solitary confinement for life is the worst thing you can ever be sentanced with, weither or not its torture can be debated i think.

I agree that to be left alone for the remainder of your years with your own thoughts is a punishment worse than death. But I think then that this illustrates that the solitary confinement is not a method we would use to rehabilitate a criminal, and that if we agree the punishment is far worse, why not execute him?

If it\'s a matter of being able to applaud our own humanity I don\'t think it\'s fair because in this several of us appear to agree that solitary for life is a fate worse than death, so aren\'t we being unduly cruel?

I agree with the sentiment about letting a guilty man go over hanging an innocent man. The death penalty is something that should only be considered for criminals where guilt can absolutely be certainly assessed. Someone like Saddam Hussein can\'t realy use the \"Wasn\'t me\" defence, nor can the crazy dude on the bus who killed and ate the guy in front of 50 people.

Interesting to find out where people sit on this issue, and stil a really bizarre thing to find myself posting about on this forum.
 

daddyo

New member
What an odd subject on a miniatures website. But here\'s my two copper\'s worth, then I\'m out of this discussion.

I voted \"yes, but with reservations.\"

The death penalty should never be removed from the table, simply because it _is_ a deterrent to some people. For the few that it doesn\'t deter, their life has just as little value as that of those that they would injure.

Personal experience aside- I missed by only two or three minutes a robbery/murder in Ogden Utah in the late 70\'s where the customers and staff of an audio store were forced into a store room, tied up and fed liquid drano. The perpetrators of this crime deserved to get a sentence of death.

Yes, sometimes innocent people are convicted of heinous crimes. That is why it takes fifteen or twenty years to finally execute death row inmates. They get appeal after appeal ad nauseum. Sometimes we forget why the inmate is getting the needle. Or the rope. Or the bullet.

Imprisonment means that a convict gets three square meals a day, an exercise period every day, cable tv, his own bed, and educational opportunities.
Better benefits than you or I can expect. And we the people pay for this.

Life imprisonment means that I\'m supporting that sorry person for the rest of my life. I can barely afford to keep my wife and child fed and clothed.

For a Capitol Crime, a death sentence is far cheaper to society. How much does 25 feet of rope cost? Or a box of 30/30 rounds (what Utah uses btw)?

Do you allow a housefly to buzz your dinnertable, or do you swat the thing (except my Bhuddist friends)?

Cold? yes. Christian? Not necessarily, but Biblical (thus the reservation). Cowboy? Yep, you betcha. Black and white worldview? Yes. I\'m a professional photographer, preferring b/w film. Long-winded? Yes. Very.

My compliments to all, for acting as adults on this touchy issue.

dgms. I\'m off my soapbox now. love ya, mean it. yes, even you, the sick mean bastard in the corner.
 

freakinacage

Well-known member
ooops i voted yes because i thought it was about corporal punishment. i agree with rev and the genrul - prison should be hard work and a deterrent. not the free hotel it currently is
 

Infidel Castro

New member
Originally posted by ScottRadom
Originally posted by reverend
I\'ve got to go a bit further with this. In the case of killing another in self-defence (as a for instance), I would see that person put in \'normal\' jail. I would also expect to see efforts made at gauging the response of the person to assess how remorseful they might be.

I don\'t follow this... why should a person who has killed in self defence go to jail or even be remorseful at all?

Grey areas. I\'m not going to bother throwing up loads of examples where self-defence might be justified but not the best way to solve an issue as it\'s too long-winded. Think bigger, dude!
 

Infidel Castro

New member
Originally posted by ScottRadom
Originally posted by El Matador
Honestly i think that the death penalty serves as an easy way out and the post above shows my point. I also think that solitary confinement for life is the worst thing you can ever be sentanced with, weither or not its torture can be debated i think.

I agree that to be left alone for the remainder of your years with your own thoughts is a punishment worse than death. But I think then that this illustrates that the solitary confinement is not a method we would use to rehabilitate a criminal, and that if we agree the punishment is far worse, why not execute him?

...

Interesting to find out where people sit on this issue, and stil a really bizarre thing to find myself posting about on this forum.

Because it\'s the easy way out. Most offenders should have a rehab arrangement, but the very worst, evilest and most deranged folk need a different approach. Killing them is one way but SOMEONE has to do the deed. That person is then a killer themselves. Let\'s be frank here: we can either behave like animals in clothes or we can face the fact that we\'re intelligent and moral creatures trying to make sense of our place in the cosmos. We can either kill a serious offender and sate our need for hard justice or we can go along a different route and try to deter people with different means. My suggestion of solitary confinement is still - unfortunately - crude, but it has to be a better alternative than another individual having to take the life of that serious offender. The person who administers the dose, points the rifle, presses the button...what then happens to them for taking a life in cold blood? Until we know more about the mind and how parts of it can be changed for the better (we\'re still a long way from that as an option and even then it throws up echoes of A Clockwork Orange, Brave New World and 1984 - not really a happy place to be) we have to consider more humane approaches; certainly solitary isn\'t particularly humane but it\'s more humane than killing someone (and isn\'t an easy way out) and offers a bigger deterrent on the face of it - losing your freedom is going to be a very bitter pill to swallow.

This is a minefield of a subject and I don\'t want to go much further into it. It\'s been interesting thinking about it though.
 

Bill

New member
Well said, Phil
thumbup.gif


Why has there been so much negativity surrounding this thread? Is it because of the evolution thread? We\'ve had lively discussions about similarly touchy subjects (and indeed this exact same subject) before. Now everyone\'s asking why we have topics like this at all!
 

mattsterbenz

New member
Originally posted by Bill
Why has there been so much negativity surrounding this thread? Is it because of the evolution thread? We\'ve had lively discussions about similarly touchy subjects (and indeed this exact same subject) before. Now everyone\'s asking why we have topics like this at all!

Cans of worms are an acquired taste. Like coffee or beer. :D Not everyone has grown accustomed to the delicious flavor!

That, or there have been a few more worm threads than usual in the past couple weeks. Maybe that has something to do with it.

-Matt
 

Evil Dave

New member
Originally posted by reverend
Let\'s be frank here: we can either behave like animals in clothes or we can face the fact that we\'re intelligent and moral creatures trying to make sense of our place in the cosmos.
Then lets be utterly frank: We are animals in clothes. Oh, sure we\'re all civilized when we\'re in a nice orderly society, but when that society is disrupted or crumbles it\'s Lord of the Flies time.

Case in point: New Orleans during/after Katrina.

If anything intelligence has made us worse than animals, we kill, maim, and destroy over concepts. Money, soccer games, whether your invisible guy in the sky is more power than my invisible guy.

I prefer to be the animal, because frankly humans suck.

As for the original question? I neither for it nor against the death penalty. To me it\'s like putting down a mad dog, regrettable, but sometimes it must be done to protect the society.
 
Back To Top
Top