etherinmeria, i'm not going to question your source of information that proved
me wrong...but according to what i read and researched,the cost is more in
keeping them alive.this argument will lead nowhere,but i'm pretty open to being
wrong.
1. See, I really don't like the idea of dehumanizing criminals. It makes people
take killing them way too lighty. All these people do is sentence them and have
someone else do the killing. If these criminals are so inhuman why not kill them
right there, out in the open where everyone can see justice in action. No one
seems to mention the families of the criminals either. You think it is so easy
for a mother to watch her child die, regardless of what they have done? You
might say the the victim's families never got that chance, but to choose to
inflict that pain upon someone else doesn't sound very fair to me.
3. Morals are subjective; they depend upon the time and place. Fairness is also
relative; I don't think any amount of retribution makes a death fair. Then
there's the problem with mistakes. You might think a few innocent people being
executed is a worthy sacrifice, but I really would like to see what you'd say if
it was you or someone you love in that position. Should the investigators be
killed for making such a gross error? Aren't they inhuman because of what they
did? Is it fair for the prosecutors to not pay any price because it was a
mistake?
4. As for my own definition of justice, justice is ideally the impartial force
that works to protect the innocent; we lock up criminals to do just that. When
justice enters the realm of vengeance and tries to appease the survivors it can
not succeed. No amount of vengeance can alleviate the grief of the
survivors.
5. Goes to show you how pathetic us humans are. We speak of high morals and
goals; but in the end everything comes down to retribution. An eye for an eye, a
life for a life. Sickening. If you let everyone get their "justice"
there would be a lot of dead people and a lot more vigilantes.
6. Should be executed? What right do you have to decide who lives and who dies.
If I was the victim I wouldn't care about my so-called fair due, since I would
be you know, dead. The core ideas have changed. You really think it matters to a
greiving family if a murder was in self-defense or an accident? To them their
fair due is for the murderer to be executed. If justice followed what all these
people wanted there would be many more dead bodies. World isn't fair anyway, get
over it.
7. I am not protecting murderers. Since when is not killing someone protection.
The victims are dead, you can't protect them anymore. If you want to protect
society lock the person up. Doesn't mean you have to kill them. I ask if I was
in their place because you never know what might become a capital offence
tommorrow and I don't like to subject a person to something I wouldn't endure
myself.
No, no one close to me has been murdered, how about you? I still wouldn't seek
hollow vengence anyway, since it wouldn't solve anything.
Quote by griffinAlso, it may be proved in
a long or short time after the execution that that person was innocent.
If you are convicted of a crime in a democracy, you can't be freed after your
trial has said that your are guilty. 99% of the people who are freed did so on
tecnical reason, not because they were truely innocent. T
Police charge the first peson at hand as it improves their stats. Also, I can
make you look guilty of the crime if I think about it before I commit the crime.
If I'm rich enough I can buy my way out of it ... that's fair ?
First of all, police pay has nothing to do with how many people they charge
because they can't. Courts do that. Second, as for setting people up, that's a
good movie but farther from reality. (Love prison break) Third, rich people are
rich, too bad, we're not communists, we shouldn't be punished because we work 80
hour weeks to make ourselves wealthy.
We can never achieve true fairness/equality, but we can try to move towards that
as much as humanly possible.
I believe the death penalty is a good idea and same with mercy killings. My
reason is because the human population is too big and we can always stand to
lose a few people and those people might as well be criminals who commit extreme
crimes and people who are suffering to death with incurable diseases.
The Death Penalty should only be used on serial killers and people who commit
premedated(sp?) murders but not on people who commit heat of passion murders. At
least thats what I think anyways.
As for Mercy Killings I belive people should be allowed to die if thats what
they wish. I for one wouldn't want to carrying on living if all I had to look
forward too was many months of pain for both myself and my family as they were
forced to watch me suffer.
No one seems to mention the families of the criminals either. You think it is
so easy for a mother to watch her child die, regardless of what they have done?
You might say the the victim's families never got that chance, but to choose to
inflict that pain upon someone else doesn't sound very fair to me.
I'm not as concerned about the criminal's mother. Every mother wants her child
to live, unless the crime was committed against her and she's dead.
Quote:
Morals are subjective; they depend upon the time and place. Fairness is also
relative; I don't think any amount of retribution makes a death fair. Then
there's the problem with mistakes. You might think a few innocent people being
executed is a worthy sacrifice, but I really would like to see what you'd say if
it was you or someone you love in that position. Should the investigators be
killed for making such a gross error? Aren't they inhuman because of what they
did? Is it fair for the prosecutors to not pay any price because it was a
mistake?
I oppose 1st time criminal execution, or if they had no prior conviction, I
don't believe they should be executed. Democracies have the appeals system to
prevent innocents from being killed as much as possible, and not too many
"innocent" people being executed are too innocent. (rapists, murders,
kidnapping,etc.) Investigators are there for the the justice you seek.
Supposedly they are the impartial foce. (continued below)
Quote:
4. As for my own definition of justice, justice is ideally the impartial force
that works to protect the innocent; we lock up criminals to do just that. When
justice enters the realm of vengeance and tries to appease the survivors it can
not succeed. No amount of vengeance can alleviate the grief of the
survivors.
There is no such thing as an impartial force, we are all biased towards
something. I agree with you that most criminals shouldn't be executed, but there
are just some that don't deserve to live.
Quote:
5. Goes to show you how pathetic us humans are. We speak of high morals and
goals; but in the end everything comes down to retribution. An eye for an eye, a
life for a life. Sickening. If you let everyone get their "justice"
there would be a lot of dead people and a lot more vigilantes.
6. Should be executed? What right do you have to decide who lives and who dies.
If I was the victim I wouldn't care about my so-called fair due, since I would
be you know, dead. The core ideas have changed. You really think it matters to a
greiving family if a murder was in self-defense or an accident? To them their
fair due is for the murderer to be executed. If justice followed what all these
people wanted there would be many more dead bodies. World isn't fair anyway, get
over it.
What right do I have to decide? The same right that you decide they deserve to
live. If you were the victim you CAN'T care, unless you are a ghost back for
vengenace. -Good Movies.... Anyways, the victim's family might.
Quote:
7. I am not protecting murderers. Since when is not killing someone protection.
The victims are dead, you can't protect them anymore. If you want to protect
society lock the person up. Doesn't mean you have to kill them. I ask if I was
in their place because you never know what might become a capital offence
tommorrow and I don't like to subject a person to something I wouldn't endure
myself.
No, no one close to me has been murdered, how about you? I still wouldn't seek
hollow vengence anyway, since it wouldn't solve
anything.
No. But I do have close relationships with people who have. It's hard to
describe their anguish and hatred, and very hard to comprehend otherwise. I
don't it's fair to say that you might convict a crime tommorow we should rid the
death sentence, it's just a bit selfish. My concern is for the victim's family,
and probably I'm biased becuse of my own experience. But this is just what I
believe, and I don't think I'll be changing it anytime soon.
merged: 11-30-2005 ~ 08:31am
Quote by TEKcamoKENetherinmeria, i'm
not going to question your source of information that proved me wrong...but
according to what i read and researched,the cost is more in keeping them
alive.this argument will lead nowhere,but i'm pretty open to being
wrong.
2.16 million in North Carolina, U.S.A.
According to Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information
Center in Washington, D.C.,
The Bible says in Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not murder." This does not
say "kill", but specifically murder. This is backed up elsewhere in
the Bible that murderers should be put to death, and it also advocates the death
penalty. I also believe that criminals who murder/rape/molest others have an
extremely, extremely low chance of desire to change their ways, so I vote
death.
However, euthenasia is something that is quite the touchy subject. After the
entire debaucle with Terri Shiavo earlier this year, new prescedents have been
set. I was against this because Terri's parents were willing to take her, and
yet her "husband" refused to give her up and wanted her to die.
Interestingly enough, she had no living will. But as for my personal choice, I
am against these so-called "mercy killings". If the person has a set
living will that states they do not want to live in a vegetated state, so be it.
If extreme measures must be taken to extinguish the life of the patient, then
such a measure is wrong. Nature should let it's course be run in these
instances.
Part of the controversy of this issue is fueled by the young generation's
irrisponsibility to view themselves as mortal, thinking that such a calamity
would never befall them. Take the precautions, get a living will. If you don't,
we should be forced to err on the side of life.
Quote by BwayzoeThe Bible says in Exodus
20:13 "Thou shalt not murder." This does not say "kill", but
specifically murder. This is backed up elsewhere in the Bible that murderers
should be put to death, and it also advocates the death penalty. I also believe
that criminals who murder/rape/molest others have an extremely, extremely low
chance of desire to change their ways, so I vote
death.
The Bible says a lot of things, how about we go stone those unholy homosexuals
and destroy the false idols of those heathens too? A religious document should
not dictate secular law anyway.
1. I am concerned about the criminals family, like I said, you never know if
that might be your son/daughter in that position someday.
2. Not too many, but enough. There are people who are completely innocent and
have been executed. Again, there is too much bias towards races and social
classes for the death penalty to work. I don't seek justice in the sense of
revenge. If justice is revenge then I don't seek it at all.
3. You have no right to say they do not deserve to live. I have no right to say
they do deserve to live. I don't pretend to have that right, but I don't see how
not killing someone is considered to be presuming anything.
4. The victim's family has no right to seek another life in retribution. Seems
selfish to me.
5. That is not my only reason, just an example. Justice should not be vengeance.
Argue as much as you want but:
ven·geance
n.
Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution.
Sounds an awful lot like your justice now doesn't it. I fail to understand how
more death can make the victim's family feel better. Does it really make them
feel any better? Does it make that person's death more fair? Then really, what
is the point? Give me a better reason besides retribution.
How much money it saves (none, apparently) shouldn't be an issue unless money
has become more imporatant than life.
Justice and vegence are not the same thing, especially since they have two words
which have two meanings with minor differences.
1. Our conflict here get no where. Victim v. Criminal family. Let's bench it for
now.
2. The process of the death sentence now is much more accurate, especially with
DNA and increased awareness for racism and other forms of prejudice. If we
continue along this path, 20 years from now innocents on death row won't be a
problem. D.S. should hold out until the form is perfected.
3. ?
4. The criminal had no orginal right to inflict damage on other for his own
gain, starting the selfish trend. This is going to sound childish, but HE DID IT
FIRST!
5. Perhaps there is no difference, but I can't imagine a world where criminal
aren't punished. Look at the neitherlands, prisons have cable, food, hospitable
living conditions, and sometime "vactation"/home time and massages.
This isn't going to make people believe that committing crimes are not
acceptable. Once again, criminals feed on society's sympathy. You can't help a
snake, he is going to bite you.
You're right. Money doesn't really matter in this moral debate.
2. So the innocents who do get executed before then are acceptable sacrifices?
For one I doubt any justice system that seeks vengeance could ever be
"perfected", if such a state even exists. Two, if even one innocent
person is executed (it has happened) then the justice system has failed at
protecting the innocent.
3. Okay, look, I'm not saying they deserve to live; I have no more right to say
that then you have the right to say they deserve to die. Both of these are the
same things anyway; if you decide who dies, you decide who lives; if you decide
who lives, you decide who dies. I just don't think who lives or dies should be
in the hands of the justice system.
4. You're right that is childish. There is no reason you need to respond in kind
to such an offence; it fixes nothing.
5. You've already said vengeance is inarguably hollow; if justice is the same
don't you see a problem?
2. NO justice system is perfect. And certainly that doesn't mean we destroy it
and build a new one everyone time. Innocent die. Too bad. Life is brutish,
nasty, and short. But as we move towards the "limit of perfection"
(math term), we become better at protecting the innocent. Removing the death
penalty is like saying we quit, because it's unfair to oneside. It's going to be
unfair to one side no matter what, it depends on which side you choose and
why.
3. The who's hands should it be in? (live & die)
4.It doesn't fix anything. But it does prove that criminal are punished for
EXTREME events. Spreading AIDS to 300 people, 28 murders and rapes,
etc.
5. Perhaps. But I can't imagine a world without justice. Just as you are
providing justice to the criminals, I'm doing the opposite. It can't be a
problem, but it can have many contradictions.
2. What if you or someone you care about is one of those innocents? By your
logic: Innocents are murdered. Too bad. Life is brutish, nasty, and short. You
don't get to take another life in retribution. Get over it. I know what a limit
is too.
3. Only in the individual whose life it is.
4. It doesn't even act as a deterrent. So, we prove we are brutish and vengeful
to everyone? Yeah....
5. I am providing the murderers with nothing. My stance is to not take away
their lives. Again, how is not killing them providing them with justice?
2. I'll do everything legally possible. Otherwise, there isn't much. Would it be
likely, not really... (actually, it be great if you could tell me how many
"innocent" die every year. 2005 not 1950.
3. You want criminals to sentence themselves? They are not that noble.
4. But it does mark capital crimes as unacceptable. We act brutish and vengeful
to criminals, not everyone.
5. You are providing cons with right to life. Killing them provide justice to
victims & relative & society.
This isn't going to get anywhere. It's crimnal v. victim. There should be some
kind of weighing mechanism. Any ideas?
2. Not officially. I do know that 122 death row inmates were found innocent and
released in the last 30 years. Enough close calls, and I doubt whether anyone
would admit if they had executed an innocent person. Even one innocent life
taken is too many, though.
3. So, you assume the right to end their lives for them? You don't really seem
all that noble either.
4. But it doesn't do anything. There are other ways to say something is
unacceptable besides killing someone. We're still being brutish and vengeful,
regardless.
5. The right to life is their right as it is everyone elses. I am simply letting
them keep what is already their's. You still haven't told me how this provides
"justice" to these people, anyway.
When it comes to a life there is no weighing mechanism. One person is not more
deserving of life than the other. Any Ideas? Yeah, stop seeking vengeance under
the guise of justice. You're right, this is going nowhere; we'll never reach a
conclusion.
2. O.K., maybe ACLU isn't exactly your most objective source. The only things
that they list is what already happened, which by your logic, can't be changed.
Thus, not important at all. Currently, the number of innocent is few if none at
all. DNA is being considered a vital part of the evidence to convict in Capital
cases.
3. The government does. They may not be noble, but they are make, enforce, and
interpret the laws.
4. PASS. THIS IS GOING NOWHERE. THE EFFECT IS ARGUEABLY HARD TO PROVE, EITHER
WAY.
5. The criminal take away other's right to life, there for we take away theirs.
An eye for an eye makes the world blind, but does that mean everyone, or just
criminals?
Quote by Shamshiel2. Not officially. I
do know that 122 death row inmates were found innocent and released in the last
30 years. Enough close calls, and I doubt whether anyone would admit if they had
executed an innocent person. Even one innocent life taken is too many,
though.
3. So, you assume the right to end their lives for them? You don't really seem
all that noble either.
4. But it doesn't do anything. There are other ways to say something is
unacceptable besides killing someone. We're still being brutish and vengeful,
regardless.
5. The right to life is their right as it is everyone elses. I am simply letting
them keep what is already their's. You still haven't told me how this provides
"justice" to these people, anyway.
When it comes to a life there is no weighing mechanism. One person is not more
deserving of life than the other. Any Ideas? Yeah, stop seeking vengeance under
the guise of justice. You're right, this is going nowhere; we'll never reach a
conclusion.
I have a question for you Shamshiel. Are any of you family members serving time
in prision or death row? You seem to be a advocate for the criminals?
The death penalty dont bring justice to all, but for most it brings closure and
comfort. Its a comforting feeling knowing your loved ones killer will never harm
another innocent person again.
Also why should the murderer get all this sympathy? He didnt give a thought to
hacking his victem to death.
As for the ACLU, I wouldnt take too much weight anything that socialist org.
says.
2. I needed a source, listing random figures from my head seemed distasteful.
Give me any unbiased source and I'll use it. What the hell is with the
"innocent" anyway; are you really so naive to think everyone in jail
is a dirty rotten guilty bastard?
3. A government definetly has no right to decide who lives and who dies.
Governments like that haven't really had a good track record in the
past.
5. If you think anyone will ever win such a pointless, vengeful cycle you are a
fool. Everyone will end up blind; not just the criminals.
Miroku4444:
No. And for the last time, how the hell is me NOT wanting to execute someone
defending anybody? Has vengeance become so natural that not seeking it is
unnatural?
But it doesn't fix anything. That person is still dead; an execution still won't
make that right or fair. Comforting? So your comfort is worth another human
life? That is one of the most arrogant things I have ever heard. If you want
that comfort so much why not execute the person yourself? Instead people are too
scared to even look at the face of the life they want to end.
Again, how is not killing someone acting sympatheticly? So you don't give a
thought to killing him. Looks like you can't see the value of human life
either.
I'll ignore that last line.
This debate is going absolutely nowhere; It would take a blow by a Mack Truck to
change your opinion. Even then, you'd probably rationalize somehow.
I think we've taken up enough of this thread with this pointless arguement; this
will be my last post in this topic. Farewell.
2. I needed a source, listing random figures from my head seemed distasteful.
Give me any unbiased source and I'll use it. What the hell is with the
"innocent" anyway; are you really so naive to think everyone in jail
is a dirty rotten guilty bastard?
3. A government definetly has no right to decide who lives and who dies.
Governments like that haven't really had a good track record in the
past.
5. If you think anyone will ever win such a pointless, vengeful cycle you are a
fool. Everyone will end up blind; not just the criminals.
Miroku4444:
No. And for the last time, how the hell is me NOT wanting to execute someone
defending anybody? Has vengeance become so natural that not seeking it is
unnatural?
But it doesn't fix anything. That person is still dead; an execution still won't
make that right or fair. Comforting? So your comfort is worth another human
life? That is one of the most arrogant things I have ever heard. If you want
that comfort so much why not execute the person yourself? Instead people are too
scared to even look at the face of the life they want to end.
Again, how is not killing someone acting sympatheticly? So you don't give a
thought to killing him. Looks like you can't see the value of human life
either.
I'll ignore that last line.
This debate is going absolutely nowhere; It would take a blow by a Mack Truck to
change your opinion. Even then, you'd probably rationalize somehow.
I think we've taken up enough of this thread with this pointless arguement; this
will be my last post in this topic. Farewell.
It's defending
someone because all you talked about was the criminals right, and said nothing
in the defence of the victem. Which led us to beleive you care more about the
criminal than the victem. I dont put much stake in a cold blooded murderers life
and i bet he wouldnt about yours if he had you at knife point. Yes i would give
a thought to killing him, the question is would he give a thought to killing
you? The answer is no!
We dont get comfort from the fact hes dead, comfort comes from the fact that he
wont try to kill anyone ever again, and felt some of the pain he dished out to
the victem. If he killed a family member of mine, dont worry ill be sure to
watch his face as he dies.
The death penalty does not exist to serve as a form of revenge. It acts as a
deterrence to people who have thoughts of taking revenge through murder or those
who wants to make money quickly through the illegal drug trade. Without the
death sentence, they would be less 'disincentive' as the most they get will be a
life sentence, which is much better than death to most people.
Regarding mercy killings, I think it should be allowed as long as it is with the
person involved's consent. I don't think the decision should be made by people
related, except in the case of brain dead people, or those who can't make their
feelings known.
Death Penalty shouldn't exist, reason being is our justice system in the United
States is inferior. It convicts innocent people to death more often than you
think.
Realize most trials depend on how good your lawyer is, just think in the case of
O.J. Simpson (the football player), he got of scott-free for a crime he more
than obviously committed. His lawyer Johnny Cochran.
Problem is even though court is suppose to acknowledge fact ONLY, there are
times juries and judges make decisions on the emotion of the plaintiffs or
defendants. Also swearing to God doesn't stop a lot of people from
lying.
If the system was flawless then yes; the death penalty should exist.
As for the case of mercy killing. That first off all together a bad situation.
But ultimately it shouldn't be someone elses call. So long as the person is
still living through the current means necessary (including not breathing on
their own), unless they show some sign of wanting to die - basically its no one
elses decision besides their own. And if you're religious, it's not even the
person can decide if they want to die, because you'll go to hell for taking your
own life.
2. Funny you talk about naiveness. You think they don't deserve do die for the
atrocities they have committed, who is naive? When a person kills without
regret, you think they'll be better in jail. locked in a cell for a your whole
life isn't always punishement.- Source thing, I get it next week. Big test on
Saturday.
3. Regardless of the government's track, which never has been good, they are the
central authority of power, granted by the citizery. In a democracy, the people
will speak for themselve on what should be taken or not.
3. If everyone is blind they can no longer committe crimes... And I'm sure
people like you will stop the cycle, right?
I note that one has mentioned about the recent execution of Australian
Vietnamese (not Filipino) and considers it harsh. In the late Nguyen's case, the
problem is - drug couriers and traffickers know or mostly know of the tough drug
laws in the region.
People have been warned before embarking or disembarking in these countries for
gazillion times already that drug trafficking carries a mandatory death sentence
but they are still stupid enough to still do so. How much heroin (example) will
get you the noose? 15 grams. For those who wants to know how light 15 grams is,
the combined weight of the coins shown below (actual size) approx. 15
grams:
(Thickness: 10c = 1mm, 20c = 1.5mm)
In Nguyen's case, he carried 396.2 grams of heroin. Did he deserve the penalty?
Yes.
Oh btw, lest someone accuse me that I support the death penalty, don't bother.
Yes, I do support them PROVIDED they are sentenced according to/administered by
the due process of law. That means the accused is first given a fair trial, with
legal representation, with evidence available presented before the court and the
accused gets the death penalty after all those evidence presented have been
fairly heard and deliberated by the judge.
Again as a pre-emptive measure, even the highest law of the land in a democratic
country (typically the Constitution) usually state that no person shall be
deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law. Heck, even
the US Constitution have a provision of that effect (for those who does not know
- check Sec.1, Amendment XIV). Accordingly, it is the prerogative of the state
to formulate laws and the accompanying sanctions as it may see fit in order to
protect public life, safety and security. If the state has to use the death
penalty as a method of instilling fear in the citizens against committing
violent crimes, drugs offences, etc., so be it.
Yes, innocents may unfortunately be a victim but again, that depends on multiple
factors i.e. in the wrong place at the wrong time, mistaken identity, lack of
exonerating evidence, etc. but just because innocents do get caught (very few or
rare compared to the total number of actual criminals), why should we abandon
it? The DP is nothing more than a 2-edged sword. If we say DP is wrong because
it kills innocents, why don't we say guns (yet another 2-edged sword) are wrong
because thousands of innocents die from them every day? And by extension of
that, why don't we abolish the use of guns from the public (whoa boy, I can just
see the anti-gun lobbyists jumping in joy with this solution).
Face it. Compared with guns, the use of DP is very much regulated and scrutinied
BEFORE it is even administered on the condemned. PC'ness is good now & then
but please...take it outside of criminal law & the justice system.
etherinmeria, i'm not going to question your source of information that proved me wrong...but according to what i read and researched,the cost is more in keeping them alive.this argument will lead nowhere,but i'm pretty open to being wrong.
Don't worry it takes a lot to offend me.
1. See, I really don't like the idea of dehumanizing criminals. It makes people take killing them way too lighty. All these people do is sentence them and have someone else do the killing. If these criminals are so inhuman why not kill them right there, out in the open where everyone can see justice in action. No one seems to mention the families of the criminals either. You think it is so easy for a mother to watch her child die, regardless of what they have done? You might say the the victim's families never got that chance, but to choose to inflict that pain upon someone else doesn't sound very fair to me.
3. Morals are subjective; they depend upon the time and place. Fairness is also relative; I don't think any amount of retribution makes a death fair. Then there's the problem with mistakes. You might think a few innocent people being executed is a worthy sacrifice, but I really would like to see what you'd say if it was you or someone you love in that position. Should the investigators be killed for making such a gross error? Aren't they inhuman because of what they did? Is it fair for the prosecutors to not pay any price because it was a mistake?
4. As for my own definition of justice, justice is ideally the impartial force that works to protect the innocent; we lock up criminals to do just that. When justice enters the realm of vengeance and tries to appease the survivors it can not succeed. No amount of vengeance can alleviate the grief of the survivors.
5. Goes to show you how pathetic us humans are. We speak of high morals and goals; but in the end everything comes down to retribution. An eye for an eye, a life for a life. Sickening. If you let everyone get their "justice" there would be a lot of dead people and a lot more vigilantes.
6. Should be executed? What right do you have to decide who lives and who dies. If I was the victim I wouldn't care about my so-called fair due, since I would be you know, dead. The core ideas have changed. You really think it matters to a greiving family if a murder was in self-defense or an accident? To them their fair due is for the murderer to be executed. If justice followed what all these people wanted there would be many more dead bodies. World isn't fair anyway, get over it.
7. I am not protecting murderers. Since when is not killing someone protection. The victims are dead, you can't protect them anymore. If you want to protect society lock the person up. Doesn't mean you have to kill them. I ask if I was in their place because you never know what might become a capital offence tommorrow and I don't like to subject a person to something I wouldn't endure myself.
No, no one close to me has been murdered, how about you? I still wouldn't seek hollow vengence anyway, since it wouldn't solve anything.
If you are convicted of a crime in a democracy, you can't be freed after your trial has said that your are guilty. 99% of the people who are freed did so on tecnical reason, not because they were truely innocent. T
First of all, police pay has nothing to do with how many people they charge because they can't. Courts do that. Second, as for setting people up, that's a good movie but farther from reality. (Love prison break) Third, rich people are rich, too bad, we're not communists, we shouldn't be punished because we work 80 hour weeks to make ourselves wealthy.
We can never achieve true fairness/equality, but we can try to move towards that as much as humanly possible.
I believe the death penalty is a good idea and same with mercy killings. My reason is because the human population is too big and we can always stand to lose a few people and those people might as well be criminals who commit extreme crimes and people who are suffering to death with incurable diseases.
The Death Penalty should only be used on serial killers and people who commit premedated(sp?) murders but not on people who commit heat of passion murders. At least thats what I think anyways.
As for Mercy Killings I belive people should be allowed to die if thats what they wish. I for one wouldn't want to carrying on living if all I had to look forward too was many months of pain for both myself and my family as they were forced to watch me suffer.
I'm not as concerned about the criminal's mother. Every mother wants her child to live, unless the crime was committed against her and she's dead.
I oppose 1st time criminal execution, or if they had no prior conviction, I don't believe they should be executed. Democracies have the appeals system to prevent innocents from being killed as much as possible, and not too many "innocent" people being executed are too innocent. (rapists, murders, kidnapping,etc.) Investigators are there for the the justice you seek. Supposedly they are the impartial foce. (continued below)
There is no such thing as an impartial force, we are all biased towards something. I agree with you that most criminals shouldn't be executed, but there are just some that don't deserve to live.
What right do I have to decide? The same right that you decide they deserve to live. If you were the victim you CAN'T care, unless you are a ghost back for vengenace. -Good Movies.... Anyways, the victim's family might.
No. But I do have close relationships with people who have. It's hard to describe their anguish and hatred, and very hard to comprehend otherwise. I don't it's fair to say that you might convict a crime tommorow we should rid the death sentence, it's just a bit selfish. My concern is for the victim's family, and probably I'm biased becuse of my own experience. But this is just what I believe, and I don't think I'll be changing it anytime soon.
merged: 11-30-2005 ~ 08:31am
2.16 million in North Carolina, U.S.A.
According to Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.,
http://www.fguide.org/Bulletin/cappun.htm
merged: 11-30-2005 ~ 08:32am
Beat That!
(sorry, i just had to) >=0000000~~~~~!
The Bible says in Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not murder." This does not say "kill", but specifically murder. This is backed up elsewhere in the Bible that murderers should be put to death, and it also advocates the death penalty. I also believe that criminals who murder/rape/molest others have an extremely, extremely low chance of desire to change their ways, so I vote death.
However, euthenasia is something that is quite the touchy subject. After the entire debaucle with Terri Shiavo earlier this year, new prescedents have been set. I was against this because Terri's parents were willing to take her, and yet her "husband" refused to give her up and wanted her to die. Interestingly enough, she had no living will. But as for my personal choice, I am against these so-called "mercy killings". If the person has a set living will that states they do not want to live in a vegetated state, so be it. If extreme measures must be taken to extinguish the life of the patient, then such a measure is wrong. Nature should let it's course be run in these instances.
Part of the controversy of this issue is fueled by the young generation's irrisponsibility to view themselves as mortal, thinking that such a calamity would never befall them. Take the precautions, get a living will. If you don't, we should be forced to err on the side of life.
The Bible says a lot of things, how about we go stone those unholy homosexuals and destroy the false idols of those heathens too? A religious document should not dictate secular law anyway.
1. I am concerned about the criminals family, like I said, you never know if that might be your son/daughter in that position someday.
2. Not too many, but enough. There are people who are completely innocent and have been executed. Again, there is too much bias towards races and social classes for the death penalty to work. I don't seek justice in the sense of revenge. If justice is revenge then I don't seek it at all.
3. You have no right to say they do not deserve to live. I have no right to say they do deserve to live. I don't pretend to have that right, but I don't see how not killing someone is considered to be presuming anything.
4. The victim's family has no right to seek another life in retribution. Seems selfish to me.
5. That is not my only reason, just an example. Justice should not be vengeance. Argue as much as you want but:
ven·geance
n.
Infliction of punishment in return for a wrong committed; retribution.
Sounds an awful lot like your justice now doesn't it. I fail to understand how more death can make the victim's family feel better. Does it really make them feel any better? Does it make that person's death more fair? Then really, what is the point? Give me a better reason besides retribution.
How much money it saves (none, apparently) shouldn't be an issue unless money has become more imporatant than life.
Justice and vegence are not the same thing, especially since they have two words which have two meanings with minor differences.
1. Our conflict here get no where. Victim v. Criminal family. Let's bench it for now.
2. The process of the death sentence now is much more accurate, especially with DNA and increased awareness for racism and other forms of prejudice. If we continue along this path, 20 years from now innocents on death row won't be a problem. D.S. should hold out until the form is perfected.
3. ?
4. The criminal had no orginal right to inflict damage on other for his own gain, starting the selfish trend. This is going to sound childish, but HE DID IT FIRST!
5. Perhaps there is no difference, but I can't imagine a world where criminal aren't punished. Look at the neitherlands, prisons have cable, food, hospitable living conditions, and sometime "vactation"/home time and massages. This isn't going to make people believe that committing crimes are not acceptable. Once again, criminals feed on society's sympathy. You can't help a snake, he is going to bite you.
You're right. Money doesn't really matter in this moral debate.
2. So the innocents who do get executed before then are acceptable sacrifices? For one I doubt any justice system that seeks vengeance could ever be "perfected", if such a state even exists. Two, if even one innocent person is executed (it has happened) then the justice system has failed at protecting the innocent.
3. Okay, look, I'm not saying they deserve to live; I have no more right to say that then you have the right to say they deserve to die. Both of these are the same things anyway; if you decide who dies, you decide who lives; if you decide who lives, you decide who dies. I just don't think who lives or dies should be in the hands of the justice system.
4. You're right that is childish. There is no reason you need to respond in kind to such an offence; it fixes nothing.
5. You've already said vengeance is inarguably hollow; if justice is the same don't you see a problem?
2. NO justice system is perfect. And certainly that doesn't mean we destroy it and build a new one everyone time. Innocent die. Too bad. Life is brutish, nasty, and short. But as we move towards the "limit of perfection" (math term), we become better at protecting the innocent. Removing the death penalty is like saying we quit, because it's unfair to oneside. It's going to be unfair to one side no matter what, it depends on which side you choose and why.
3. The who's hands should it be in? (live & die)
4.It doesn't fix anything. But it does prove that criminal are punished for EXTREME events. Spreading AIDS to 300 people, 28 murders and rapes, etc.
5. Perhaps. But I can't imagine a world without justice. Just as you are providing justice to the criminals, I'm doing the opposite. It can't be a problem, but it can have many contradictions.
2. What if you or someone you care about is one of those innocents? By your logic: Innocents are murdered. Too bad. Life is brutish, nasty, and short. You don't get to take another life in retribution. Get over it. I know what a limit is too.
3. Only in the individual whose life it is.
4. It doesn't even act as a deterrent. So, we prove we are brutish and vengeful to everyone? Yeah....
5. I am providing the murderers with nothing. My stance is to not take away their lives. Again, how is not killing them providing them with justice?
2. I'll do everything legally possible. Otherwise, there isn't much. Would it be likely, not really... (actually, it be great if you could tell me how many "innocent" die every year. 2005 not 1950.
3. You want criminals to sentence themselves? They are not that noble.
4. But it does mark capital crimes as unacceptable. We act brutish and vengeful to criminals, not everyone.
5. You are providing cons with right to life. Killing them provide justice to victims & relative & society.
This isn't going to get anywhere. It's crimnal v. victim. There should be some kind of weighing mechanism. Any ideas?
2. Not officially. I do know that 122 death row inmates were found innocent and released in the last 30 years. Enough close calls, and I doubt whether anyone would admit if they had executed an innocent person. Even one innocent life taken is too many, though.
http://www.aclu.org/capital/facts/10593res20050216.html
3. So, you assume the right to end their lives for them? You don't really seem all that noble either.
4. But it doesn't do anything. There are other ways to say something is unacceptable besides killing someone. We're still being brutish and vengeful, regardless.
5. The right to life is their right as it is everyone elses. I am simply letting them keep what is already their's. You still haven't told me how this provides "justice" to these people, anyway.
When it comes to a life there is no weighing mechanism. One person is not more deserving of life than the other. Any Ideas? Yeah, stop seeking vengeance under the guise of justice. You're right, this is going nowhere; we'll never reach a conclusion.
serial killers = hang to death. :P
2. O.K., maybe ACLU isn't exactly your most objective source. The only things that they list is what already happened, which by your logic, can't be changed. Thus, not important at all. Currently, the number of innocent is few if none at all. DNA is being considered a vital part of the evidence to convict in Capital cases.
3. The government does. They may not be noble, but they are make, enforce, and interpret the laws.
4. PASS. THIS IS GOING NOWHERE. THE EFFECT IS ARGUEABLY HARD TO PROVE, EITHER WAY.
5. The criminal take away other's right to life, there for we take away theirs. An eye for an eye makes the world blind, but does that mean everyone, or just criminals?
Peace. I think I've said everything.
I have a question for you Shamshiel. Are any of you family members serving time in prision or death row? You seem to be a advocate for the criminals?
The death penalty dont bring justice to all, but for most it brings closure and comfort. Its a comforting feeling knowing your loved ones killer will never harm another innocent person again.
Also why should the murderer get all this sympathy? He didnt give a thought to hacking his victem to death.
As for the ACLU, I wouldnt take too much weight anything that socialist org. says.
Etherinmeria:
2. I needed a source, listing random figures from my head seemed distasteful. Give me any unbiased source and I'll use it. What the hell is with the "innocent" anyway; are you really so naive to think everyone in jail is a dirty rotten guilty bastard?
3. A government definetly has no right to decide who lives and who dies. Governments like that haven't really had a good track record in the past.
5. If you think anyone will ever win such a pointless, vengeful cycle you are a fool. Everyone will end up blind; not just the criminals.
Miroku4444:
No. And for the last time, how the hell is me NOT wanting to execute someone defending anybody? Has vengeance become so natural that not seeking it is unnatural?
But it doesn't fix anything. That person is still dead; an execution still won't make that right or fair. Comforting? So your comfort is worth another human life? That is one of the most arrogant things I have ever heard. If you want that comfort so much why not execute the person yourself? Instead people are too scared to even look at the face of the life they want to end.
Again, how is not killing someone acting sympatheticly? So you don't give a thought to killing him. Looks like you can't see the value of human life either.
I'll ignore that last line.
This debate is going absolutely nowhere; It would take a blow by a Mack Truck to change your opinion. Even then, you'd probably rationalize somehow.
I think we've taken up enough of this thread with this pointless arguement; this will be my last post in this topic. Farewell.
It's defending someone because all you talked about was the criminals right, and said nothing in the defence of the victem. Which led us to beleive you care more about the criminal than the victem. I dont put much stake in a cold blooded murderers life and i bet he wouldnt about yours if he had you at knife point. Yes i would give a thought to killing him, the question is would he give a thought to killing you? The answer is no!
We dont get comfort from the fact hes dead, comfort comes from the fact that he wont try to kill anyone ever again, and felt some of the pain he dished out to the victem. If he killed a family member of mine, dont worry ill be sure to watch his face as he dies.
The death penalty does not exist to serve as a form of revenge. It acts as a deterrence to people who have thoughts of taking revenge through murder or those who wants to make money quickly through the illegal drug trade. Without the death sentence, they would be less 'disincentive' as the most they get will be a life sentence, which is much better than death to most people.
Regarding mercy killings, I think it should be allowed as long as it is with the person involved's consent. I don't think the decision should be made by people related, except in the case of brain dead people, or those who can't make their feelings known.
Death Penalty shouldn't exist, reason being is our justice system in the United States is inferior. It convicts innocent people to death more often than you think.
Realize most trials depend on how good your lawyer is, just think in the case of O.J. Simpson (the football player), he got of scott-free for a crime he more than obviously committed. His lawyer Johnny Cochran.
Problem is even though court is suppose to acknowledge fact ONLY, there are times juries and judges make decisions on the emotion of the plaintiffs or defendants. Also swearing to God doesn't stop a lot of people from lying.
If the system was flawless then yes; the death penalty should exist.
As for the case of mercy killing. That first off all together a bad situation. But ultimately it shouldn't be someone elses call. So long as the person is still living through the current means necessary (including not breathing on their own), unless they show some sign of wanting to die - basically its no one elses decision besides their own. And if you're religious, it's not even the person can decide if they want to die, because you'll go to hell for taking your own life.
2. Funny you talk about naiveness. You think they don't deserve do die for the atrocities they have committed, who is naive? When a person kills without regret, you think they'll be better in jail. locked in a cell for a your whole life isn't always punishement.- Source thing, I get it next week. Big test on Saturday.
3. Regardless of the government's track, which never has been good, they are the central authority of power, granted by the citizery. In a democracy, the people will speak for themselve on what should be taken or not.
3. If everyone is blind they can no longer committe crimes... And I'm sure people like you will stop the cycle, right?
I note that one has mentioned about the recent execution of Australian Vietnamese (not Filipino) and considers it harsh. In the late Nguyen's case, the problem is - drug couriers and traffickers know or mostly know of the tough drug laws in the region.
People have been warned before embarking or disembarking in these countries for gazillion times already that drug trafficking carries a mandatory death sentence but they are still stupid enough to still do so. How much heroin (example) will get you the noose? 15 grams. For those who wants to know how light 15 grams is, the combined weight of the coins shown below (actual size) approx. 15 grams:
(Thickness: 10c = 1mm, 20c = 1.5mm)
In Nguyen's case, he carried 396.2 grams of heroin. Did he deserve the penalty? Yes.
Oh btw, lest someone accuse me that I support the death penalty, don't bother. Yes, I do support them PROVIDED they are sentenced according to/administered by the due process of law. That means the accused is first given a fair trial, with legal representation, with evidence available presented before the court and the accused gets the death penalty after all those evidence presented have been fairly heard and deliberated by the judge.
Again as a pre-emptive measure, even the highest law of the land in a democratic country (typically the Constitution) usually state that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law. Heck, even the US Constitution have a provision of that effect (for those who does not know - check Sec.1, Amendment XIV). Accordingly, it is the prerogative of the state to formulate laws and the accompanying sanctions as it may see fit in order to protect public life, safety and security. If the state has to use the death penalty as a method of instilling fear in the citizens against committing violent crimes, drugs offences, etc., so be it.
Yes, innocents may unfortunately be a victim but again, that depends on multiple factors i.e. in the wrong place at the wrong time, mistaken identity, lack of exonerating evidence, etc. but just because innocents do get caught (very few or rare compared to the total number of actual criminals), why should we abandon it? The DP is nothing more than a 2-edged sword. If we say DP is wrong because it kills innocents, why don't we say guns (yet another 2-edged sword) are wrong because thousands of innocents die from them every day? And by extension of that, why don't we abolish the use of guns from the public (whoa boy, I can just see the anti-gun lobbyists jumping in joy with this solution).
Face it. Compared with guns, the use of DP is very much regulated and scrutinied BEFORE it is even administered on the condemned. PC'ness is good now & then but please...take it outside of criminal law & the justice system.
As for euthansia - no comments.
*end rant* I'm done here.