This is more of the more contraversial political debates.
I think it should only be used for the most unstable people out there (like the
"BTK" or "Jack the Ripper").
How about "Mercy Killings?"
"Mercy killings" is when someone purposefully kills a patient in a
hopital because the patient didn't want to suffer (like if their hooked up to
life-support).
Should this be legal?
I think it doesn't matter if its legal or not, the patient wants to die its
their choice. Its them committing suicide.
I personaly am all for the Death Penalty as well as for Mercy Killings. The
fisrt case should of course be only when there are complete certainty that the
accused is in fact guilty of a real autrocios (sp? sorry) crime.
For the latter I also believe that each person should have a right on his/her
own life - to choose what to do with it what he/she wants to - as long as it
doesn't involve other people negatively. Family members of a terminaly ill
person may also give their consent if the patient wants the Mercy Killing. The
following question is, who will pull the plug? Even if it is a Mercy Killing.
Quote by joemighty16I personaly am
all for the Death Penalty as well as for Mercy Killings. The fisrt case should
of course be only when there are complete certainty that the accused is in fact
guilty of a real autrocios (sp? sorry) crime.
For the latter I also believe that each person should have a right on his/her
own life - to choose what to do with it what he/she wants to - as long as it
doesn't involve other people negatively. Family members of a terminaly ill
person may also give their consent if the patient wants the Mercy Killing. The
following question is, who will pull the plug? Even if it is a Mercy
Killing.
Yeah i feel the same way. If you dont want to keep living as a vegitiable you
should have that right. I know someday im going to put that in my will.
On the death pentaly im in favor of that too. Why should we shell out our money
to keep those scum alive. Plus then theres 100% chance he wont kill again!
Death Penalties should be justified !
I watched on the news that an Australian of Phillipino decent was caught being
an unwilling participant of drug trafficking in Singapore. He got himself caught
and is now sentenced to the gallows on Dec 2 2005 ! I think that thats a bit
harsh, lifetime jail would have been my choice for that guy. Murders, rape etc
crimes that had "intention" (i.e. they knew they were doing something
bad) probably deserves the dealth penalty.
Mercy Killings/Euthanasia: yeah if the patient no longer has brainwaves
(technically being a 'vegetable') I think its ok. This is a pretty major issue
as euthanasia can be used against patients instead of for them - lots of
"Doctor Deaths" around in history who took the lives of many patients
and passed them off as 'willing deaths' - gotta be careful about these issues.
death penalties are wrong. what if the person is found guilty, sentinced to
death, the found innocent after he is dead? this has happened before, a lot of
times, more then 50 different ocassions i'm told. Even if the person is guilty
they should be givin a chance to atone for there sins instead of just doing away
with them forever. and as for mercy killings and suicide, i think it is fine.
someone does not what to live anymore that's there choice. the strong live, the
weak must and deserve to die. harsh but the way it think. also something about
death penelty, the person will most likely have a family. that family will be
sad if he gets life but can still love him, but killing him will only cause more
heart break. the family of the victim and the family of the crimanal.
Quote by chaossnakedeath penalties are
wrong. what if the person is found guilty, sentinced to death, the found
innocent after he is dead? this has happened before, a lot of times, more then
50 different ocassions i'm told. Even if the person is guilty they should be
givin a chance to atone for there sins instead of just doing away with them
forever. and as for mercy killings and suicide, i think it is fine. someone does
not what to live anymore that's there choice. the strong live, the weak must and
deserve to die. harsh but the way it think. also something about death penelty,
the person will most likely have a family. that family will be sad if he gets
life but can still love him, but killing him will only cause more heart break.
the family of the victim and the family of the
crimanal.
Well, too bad the victems familty didnt get a chance to love their murdered love
one. The victems family wont be sad, they will have a sence of relief
and justice. Theres always that chance that will be found innocent after he is
dead, but that very rarely happens. Also why should they get a chance to atone
for there sins? The murderer didnt give the victem a break. Gas em`
Quote by chaossnakedeath penalties are
wrong. what if the person is found guilty, sentinced to death, the found
innocent after he is dead? this has happened before, a lot of times, more then
50 different ocassions i'm told. Even if the person is guilty they should be
givin a chance to atone for there sins instead of just doing away with them
forever. and as for mercy killings and suicide, i think it is fine. someone does
not what to live anymore that's there choice. the strong live, the weak must and
deserve to die. harsh but the way it think. also something about death penelty,
the person will most likely have a family. that family will be sad if he gets
life but can still love him, but killing him will only cause more heart break.
the family of the victim and the family of the
crimanal.
Well, too bad the victems familty didnt get a chance to love their murdered love
one. The victems family wont be sad, they will have a sence of relief
and justice. Theres always that chance that will be found innocent after he is
dead, but that very rarely happens. Also why should they get a chance to atone
for there sins? The murderer didnt give the victem a break. Gas
em`
relief? justice? no neither, if anything it would be
revenge. but seeing someone die reguardless of the reason is never easy. and
everyone can change, everyone should get another chance to atone. would it be so
much worse if the person got life in prison then death. a lame saying i heard
but very true..."the problem with an eye for an eye is everyone ends up
blind." there are worse punishments then death.
Well too bad the murderers dont share your philosyapy. Well, some would get
relief and yes to me and many others it is justice. I just dont feel the need to
let them have atonement seeing they didnt give their victem that option.
Quote by Miroku4444Well too bad the
murderers dont share your philosyapy. Well, some would get relief and yes to me
and many others it is justice. I just dont feel the need to let them have
atonement seeing they didnt give their victem that option.
you act as if you know ever murderers mind. no all murders
are the same, nor are all murderers. i know there are some very sick evil people
out there but if there is the slightest chance for them to change there ways, to
be helped then it should be givin. we don't know why they did what they did. to
us it may have been wrong but we were not there. to them it may have been the
right thing which is why no one can really say what is justice. though i feel it
is wrong to kill i understand humans and that cercumstances can create a
situation that makes a very hard choice for someone. i think it is wrong for ALL
killing which is why i am against this
if you compare the fact that people usually feel no remorse for the acts that
they condemn unto others, isn't it appropriate to say that we simply do not want
them in society?
you see, when it comes to murders, alot of them have no such reason to do so.
imagine if they are allowed and free out of jail, better off you just kill them
in the first place.
consider how most of these criminals are extremists, easily provoked and easily
made angry, we must consider the public safety, why should we allow them to
live?
they have been sentenced, therefore they should be dead for the sins they
committed, and yeah, when it comes to that, they should be condemned by
society.
yeah, indeed there has been cases, but undoubtedly, the lawyers are those who
help to decide how well it will go, in cases like this, it becomes a relevant
issue of having a very powerful argument if the committed criminal should be
given a death sentence.
Now, think of this, if we imagine that they are like this, what can we do to
understand that they are innocent when upfront, it has been proven and
stated.
Ever watched the movie Devil's Advocate?
that is the one film that makes cases like this happen.
the old man has murdered the child, and he ends up going scott free because the
lawyer has won the case for him until he realized that he has committed the act
, and without remorse.
if we don;t sentence these people, then who will, we let them go after they all
act good boy, and then a few years later they kill again, who are we to blame
except ourselves?
Quote by Miroku4444Well too bad the
murderers dont share your philosyapy. Well, some would get relief and yes to me
and many others it is justice. I just dont feel the need to let them have
atonement seeing they didnt give their victem that option.
you act as if you know ever murderers mind. no all murders
are the same, nor are all murderers. i know there are some very sick evil people
out there but if there is the slightest chance for them to change there ways, to
be helped then it should be givin. we don't know why they did what they did. to
us it may have been wrong but we were not there. to them it may have been the
right thing which is why no one can really say what is justice. though i feel it
is wrong to kill i understand humans and that cercumstances can create a
situation that makes a very hard choice for someone. i think it is wrong for ALL
killing which is why i am against this
Murder is never the right thing. Im just say why give these ppl a chance when
they gave the victems none. Dont you feel for them?
@Devildude
That guy wasnt really an old man, just middle aged. Hey us ppl in our 30's are
not old men! Also didnt he molest that teen-age girl? He didnt kill her, she
testifyed against him remember?
still my point is, in contrast how do you prove that they are not guilty?
if they are, they will hide, and cases like this one in the movie is that end of
story, he gets away scott free and the world has one more criminal to worry
about, now imagine is a murderer, how many more lives will be sacrificed before
we can really again from scratch prove the fella is a criminal?
and then how many more people must die for achieving justice, all that can be
done when we could have had him dead. and then given the appropriate
sentence.
that is death and then see how everyone is safer.
merged: 11-20-2005 ~ 02:58am
actually he did kill someone....it was in the start of the film, he was talking
about a gun with his hands stained with blood and how he came back and found
corpses on the floor, when in actual fact he killed his family....
The Death Sentence and Mercy killings is two completely different things.
Personally, I have ambivalent views one the issue.
Death Sentence:
It's true that sometimes people are sentenced to death for a crime they didn'd
commite. But don't believe that they are all innocent either. They have prbably
just committed a lesser crime such as assult, rape, etc. And it cost a lot of
money to kill someone, with the appeals. (at least is U.S.) and it doesn't
really reduce criminal rates. Texas has just as much crimes occuring as any
other place on earth. But some people DO DESERVE TO DIE. People who commite
massive genocide against children (usually after rape or torture) aren't exacly
forgivable, justice have to be served. The diamond mine owners in Sierra Lione
who own slaves and kills hundreds a day after poor safety equipment in mines
don't deserve to live. There was a person in New York who spread AIDS to over
300 people after he knew he had aids, he doesn't deserve to live. There are
somethings that are unforgivable. There are criminals who live on society's
sympathy and never repent. That's just reality.
On the other hand, people who are usually charged with the Death Sentence is
found guilty on being a "future threat to society"/ Ironically enough,
life in prison means they'll only be dangers to other criminals.
As for the Mercy Killings, in most occassion, it should be justified. The family
of the victim can't take much of their loved ones in a vegetable state, it's
just too much for them to take, they too, deserve closure, and need society to
understand. It's not the whole world's problem, just the familes'.
I am completely against the death penalty. It has nothing to do with justice
(Not that anyone really knows what justice is anyway) but is simply vengeance.
Although I am against labeling anything as good or evil I find vengeance to be
an utterly stupid and pointless waste of energy. Not only is vengeance a
self-sustaining and endless cycle it also solves absolutely nothing; Life can
not be restored once taken and deeds can not be undone once committed. Like many
have mentioned there is also the problem of executing the wrong individual,
which is completely inexcusable.
As for mercy killing, I'm all for it. If a person chooses to end their own life
I see no reason why they should be kept alive against their will. If a person
has degenerated to the point where they can no longer make that decision, well,
I personally think it's better to die than to live as a mindless vegetable.
What is the value of a human life? Where is the value in that life? The value of
life is in its potential. It is in what you can do with it. It is in the effect
you can have on your fellows. I believe that each individual person decides what
effect they have on others. If the only affect a person can have is a negative
one, then we have a societal responsibility to remove that potential. A criminal
chooses their path. If a person develops true criminal tendencies, then we may
need to imprison them permanently to secure the safety of others. However, I
think there are individuals that reach certain degrees of evil which can not
then be isolated safely. We have a responsibility at that point to eliminate
them. You must kill a rabid dog, so that it does not infect others with its own
madness. I don't imagine that criminal behavior is catching like a disease, but
it does spread its negative emotional affect through its victims, their
families, and their communities. The same idea applies to mercy killings. If I
feel that I have no potential, I have the right to eliminate myself and the
suffering I cause my fellows. I don't imagine there is any real potential in
life a truly braindead individual. Keeping a "vegetable" alive a form
of greed. It is refusing to let go of something already lost.
death sentence is not simply for revenge.there are alot of other issues that is
not known to us and is kept hidden among the judicial system or government.for
example,it is simply cheaper to put the prisoner to death than by keeping him
alive.it's true that the innocent have died,but technology today is far greater
that it was,let's say 10 or even 5 years ago.so the room for mistake is pretty
much shrinking.when it all comes down to it, yes i'm up for the death
penalty.and i do believe it to be harsh in some coutries,but i guess that's
their belief.when it comes down to it part two,we are basing our answers on our
thinkings experience.and that depends on genetics and society.that sense poses a
rhetorical question,who are we to judge?
mercy killings eh?yup.go ahead.it's your life.and it is the doctors choice if he
wants to kill.i'm not just seeing the patients view,but also the doc and the
families.
Quote by TEKcamoKENit is simply
cheaper to put the prisoner to death than by keeping him
alive.i
You're kidding, right? The appeal process in most democratic society for capital
punishment is 10 years and average 1.6 million (U.S). Feeding a con causes for
life causes less than 50,000. See the difference?
merged: 11-27-2005 ~ 02:25pm
Quote by ShamshielI am completely
against the death penalty. It has nothing to do with justice (Not that anyone
really knows what justice is anyway) but is simply vengeance.
The death sentence is about justice. Punishing criminals is about justice. It
provides peace to those that have been negatively affected by the criminal. Are
you saying that mass genocide people deserve to live? FOR WHAT REASON? I just
need to know your reasoning.
Vegeance occurs when the justice fails. People become vigilantes when they
believe that the current form of justice system is weak and does not provide
protection or fairness. If you remove the death sentence, I wouldn't be
surprised if there were an increase in the number of vigilante murders. This
would destroy the justice systems. (In countries that currently legalized death
sentence)
Quote by TEKcamoKENit is simply
cheaper to put the prisoner to death than by keeping him
alive.i
You're kidding, right? The appeal process in most democratic society for capital
punishment is 10 years and average 1.6 million (U.S). Feeding a con causes for
life causes less than 50,000. See the difference?
merged: 11-27-2005 ~ 02:25pm
Quote by ShamshielI am completely
against the death penalty. It has nothing to do with justice (Not that anyone
really knows what justice is anyway) but is simply vengeance.
The death sentence is about justice. Punishing criminals is about justice. It
provides peace to those that have been negatively affected by the criminal. Are
you saying that mass genocide people deserve to live? FOR WHAT REASON? I just
need to know your reasoning.
Vegeance occurs when the justice fails. People become vigilantes when they
believe that the current form of justice system is weak and does not provide
protection or fairness. If you remove the death sentence, I wouldn't be
surprised if there were an increase in the number of vigilante murders. This
would destroy the justice systems. (In countries that currently legalized death
sentence)
What exactly is justice anyway? I see that word used to justify so much and yet
no one ever gives a good answer. If people are so justified in killing a
criminal why do they pay executioners to do the work? If you think the death
penalty is so justified become the executioner yourself; Take the criminal's
life by your own hand without wearing some silly mask to hide your face and see
if you feel so righteous afterward. Wouldn't it be a sight, to see all the
juries that ever sentenced a person to death commit the deed
themselves.
You ask for what reason mass genocide people deserve to live? What the hell does
that have to do with anything? Not all murderers are crazed psychopaths,
incapable of feeling remorse or Hitler clones. I ask for what reason any
murderer deserves to die. Are all the people they killed going to come back to
life? Is all the pain they've caused undone? No? Exactly what do you gain by
killing a murderer anyway? The great peace of mind that comes from knowing that
you've become one yourself? Peace, Peace! Are you telling me that peace of mind
is worth a human life? That is assuming that such a thing actually gives
families peace, which I highly doubt. A life for a life is not equivalent
exchange, and you aren't even getting a life in return, just peace of mind.
Doesn't seem too just to me.
All this assumes murderers are the only ones sentenced to death and that this is
all equal. Murder is not the only capital offence; others include treason,
aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape of victim under age 12, capital narcotics
conspiracy, and desertion during time of war. These are held by various U.S.
states and, in the case of treason and desertion, the federal government. Then
there's the fact that there are significant differences in the number of
minorities and poor sentenced to death than their counterparts.
As for your last argument, Canada, almost all of Europe, most of Latin America,
and Australia all have abolished the death penalty. I really haven't heard of
them having an increased number of vigilante killings or the destruction of
their justice systems.
Canada, Canada, Canada. The same country where they recal their own president.
The same country that legalized marriage between an 18+ years guy and 13+ year
old boys. Canada is not exactly the poster country for the mercy and
peace.
As for the mass genocide statement, people who killed so many others without a
single thought of remorse deserves to die. Don't tell me if someone killed
everyone in your family that still would be an ideologue. Criminals feed on
sympathy, why are you defending them?
As for the definition for justice, look it up in a dictionary. Any dictionary,
the meaning is pretty much the same. Otherwise your open interpretation would
destroy every word's meaning in existence. True, I agree with you that not all
capital crimes deserves the death sentence, but I'm only saying that it should
be an option. Unless of course you are saying that raping an 12 year old is
o.k.. The human life that you refer to has committed crimes which dehumanize the
victim of the crime, in turn making the criminal "unhuman"
And you've misunderstood about what I said about vigilantes. Just because you
haven't heard anything didn't mean it didn't happen. The evolution of the
criminal justice theory is that when laws fails to provide "justice or
fairness" in the eyes of society or the victims' loved ones, vigilantism
occurs. (See Criminal Justice in your Government Book, well, at least in the
U.S.) It's inargueable that vengenace is a hollow pursuit, you have to realize
vigilantes only seek justice for the victim. The Criminal Justice System is
suppose to provide justice to the vicitims, not the criminals.
Why do you care you much about criminal rights anyways? What about the victim?
Wasn't that an innocent life ruined/takened?
The death penalty might be about justice to most people, but it is really about
efficiency and quality of life. Eliminating the worst sort of incurable criminal
is just good sense. Why house and feed a "person" who is not capable
of changing their path. I think all life is valuable, but I don't think the
value of a single person's life outweights the value of multiple other people's
lives. If a person has no potential for good, then why is it so bad to insure
the safety of some number of people by getting rid of them. Is death really that
bad? I suppose being locked in a box for 10 years or more is better than being
dead. If a person is truly sick in the head, then it is infinitely better to end
their suffering and that of those surrounding them by excuting them. I think
there are many many many fates worse than a controlled death. I personally would
rather be dead than raped and abused. I would rather die quickly in a car
accident than over the course of several years of cancer. Why is the death
penalty infinitely worse than other punishments? I just don't see how killing a
rabid dog is meaner than locking it up. I sure don't want to live in a cage
where I eat when I'm told, exercise when I'm told, and sleep when I'm told. Why
is it that everyone thinks it is worse to be dead. Grow up and look around you.
There are plenty of criminals that can be reformed in prison (at least that is
what everyone seems to think to which I say "yeah right."), but I
think that there are certain individuals that would literately be better off
dead.
I support the death penalty. There are some people in this world that shouldn't
continue living because they've killed many people...those guys should have
never lived. The world would be a better place if we could capture and kill
every murderer...which is impossible. And when I say "murderer" I
don't mean those who kill someone out of self-defense.
Quote by EtherinmeriaCanada, Canada,
Canada. The same country where they recal their own president. The same country
that legalized marriage between an 18+ years guy and 13+ year old boys. Canada
is not exactly the poster country for the mercy and peace.
As for the mass genocide statement, people who killed so many others without a
single thought of remorse deserves to die. Don't tell me if someone killed
everyone in your family that still would be an ideologue. Criminals feed on
sympathy, why are you defending them?
As for the definition for justice, look it up in a dictionary. Any dictionary,
the meaning is pretty much the same. Otherwise your open interpretation would
destroy every word's meaning in existence. True, I agree with you that not all
capital crimes deserves the death sentence, but I'm only saying that it should
be an option. Unless of course you are saying that raping an 12 year old is
o.k.. The human life that you refer to has committed crimes which dehumanize the
victim of the crime, in turn making the criminal "unhuman"
And you've misunderstood about what I said about vigilantes. Just because you
haven't heard anything didn't mean it didn't happen. The evolution of the
criminal justice theory is that when laws nfails to provide "justice or
fairness" in the eyes of society or the victims' loved ones, vigilantism
occurs. (See Criminal Justice in your Government Book, well, at least in the
U.S.) It's inargueable that vengenace is a hollow pursuit, you have to realize
vigilantes only seek justice for the victim. The Criminal Justice System is
suppose to provide justice to the vicitims, not the criminals.
Why do you care you much about criminal rights anyways? What about the victim?
Wasn't that an innocent life ruined/takened?
You've completely ignored all the other countries I've mentioned. Besides, it's
not like American is without it's own transgressions either.
Genocide requires far more than one person. By your logic you would kill Hitler,
but what about everyone who actually physically did the killing? Would you kill
all of them? But if the murder is a part of the law doesn't that make those
people innocent? Not really as easy as who deserves to die and doesn't now is
it? I'm not sympathetic towards murderers, I just don't think people should
become murderers for vengeance.
Justice n. quality of being just, fairness.
Kind of vague. So, in turn, we should dehumanize the criminal and become
"unhuman" ourselves? I don't really like that idea.
Don't delude yourself, vigilantes do not seek justice for the victim. Killing a
person's murderer does not make their murder right or fair. See, I really don't
think there is any justice for a lost life. A vigilante seeks closure, seeks
retribution for himself. Vengeance really isn't something the dead worry about,
being dead and all.
All criminals are not murderers. I care about criminal rights because crime
depends on the law, which does not look at circumstances. Someday you might be
the guy sitting on death row; I'd care now if I were you. It may have been an
innocent life that was ruined/taken, but more killing is not going to undo
anything.
Shamshiel, let's go over what we differ line by line. And let's remember, none
of this is personal, so don't be so offended.
1. I would kill Hitler, as would you. The people who did the killing were
soldiers, sadly, it falls within the legal realm and make it ok. (only on a
tecnical basis) Soldiers have to kill people in a war, but usually it's because
one person/country is attacking them. But in the case of mass genocide, one side
doesn't do anything while the others kill them for no aparent reason. Mindless
killers without remorse are a threat to society, no one wants to promote the
trend.
2. When criminal dehumanize others, they aren't considered human anymore, or at
least that's what I believe. So when we kill them, we aren't dehumanizing anyone
because they aren't really human.
3. Definition for Justice- Black's Law Dictionary
Justice
n. 1) fairness. 2) moral rightness. 3) a scheme or system of law in which every
person receives his/ her/its due from the system, including all rights, both
natural and legal.
I think it's only fair that you define justice as well, since you argue everyone
else's definition is lacking.
4. As the definition states, justice is providing everyone his/her equal due.
And this includes the victims of the criminals. True, this does not bring them
back, but it does mean that the people who taken/affect their life will not go
on in life without being punished. Under your argument, we don't need to
punishment criminals because "it won't bring anyone back or why have
justice for a lost life."
5. As for the vigilante thing, you are taking this way out of porportion. There
would be no vigilantes if people believe there is justice or fairness, thus,
less murders in your book. But if you take out death sentence, people might not
believe there is justice for them, thus setting trend for vigliantism. (63 % of
Americans, at least, Gallop Poll, 2003)
6. I certainly hope you don't think all criminals are murders, but I do thinks
some are and should be executed. Crime does depend on the law, but the core
ideas didn't change that much since the first forms of governement, did it? What
if I was the guy on death row, you ask? What if I'm the guy killed by the
criminal? I certainly hope the legal system provides me with my fair due, and I
don't believe you would argue otherwise in the same situation.
7. You didn't answer my questions, why are you defending criminals? Why aren't
you protecting the victims? If your sole argument is "if I were in their
place", will, are you setting up a future defense? What if you were in the
victims' place?
Out of curiosity, has anyone close to you ever been killed by a con, or has
anyone been dramatically affected by a crime?
The death penalty is a crime against all that is good and intelligent. It is an
obvious offence to any Christian god. Also, it may be proved in a long or short
time after the execution that that person was innocent. 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 ?
I should have the right to end my life if I so desire. What business is it of
anyone else ? It's my personal problem with my own god.
But no one else has the right to take my life with out my prior consent.
ps... If some one needed a mercy killing and they told me to my face, I would do
it for them.
Do you think there should be the death penelty?
This is more of the more contraversial political debates.
I think it should only be used for the most unstable people out there (like the "BTK" or "Jack the Ripper").
How about "Mercy Killings?"
"Mercy killings" is when someone purposefully kills a patient in a hopital because the patient didn't want to suffer (like if their hooked up to life-support).
Should this be legal?
I think it doesn't matter if its legal or not, the patient wants to die its their choice. Its them committing suicide.
I personaly am all for the Death Penalty as well as for Mercy Killings. The fisrt case should of course be only when there are complete certainty that the accused is in fact guilty of a real autrocios (sp? sorry) crime.
For the latter I also believe that each person should have a right on his/her own life - to choose what to do with it what he/she wants to - as long as it doesn't involve other people negatively. Family members of a terminaly ill person may also give their consent if the patient wants the Mercy Killing. The following question is, who will pull the plug? Even if it is a Mercy Killing.
Yeah i feel the same way. If you dont want to keep living as a vegitiable you should have that right. I know someday im going to put that in my will.
On the death pentaly im in favor of that too. Why should we shell out our money to keep those scum alive. Plus then theres 100% chance he wont kill again!
Death Penalties should be justified !
I watched on the news that an Australian of Phillipino decent was caught being an unwilling participant of drug trafficking in Singapore. He got himself caught and is now sentenced to the gallows on Dec 2 2005 ! I think that thats a bit harsh, lifetime jail would have been my choice for that guy. Murders, rape etc crimes that had "intention" (i.e. they knew they were doing something bad) probably deserves the dealth penalty.
Mercy Killings/Euthanasia: yeah if the patient no longer has brainwaves (technically being a 'vegetable') I think its ok. This is a pretty major issue as euthanasia can be used against patients instead of for them - lots of "Doctor Deaths" around in history who took the lives of many patients and passed them off as 'willing deaths' - gotta be careful about these issues.
death penalties are wrong. what if the person is found guilty, sentinced to death, the found innocent after he is dead? this has happened before, a lot of times, more then 50 different ocassions i'm told. Even if the person is guilty they should be givin a chance to atone for there sins instead of just doing away with them forever. and as for mercy killings and suicide, i think it is fine. someone does not what to live anymore that's there choice. the strong live, the weak must and deserve to die. harsh but the way it think. also something about death penelty, the person will most likely have a family. that family will be sad if he gets life but can still love him, but killing him will only cause more heart break. the family of the victim and the family of the crimanal.
Well, too bad the victems familty didnt get a chance to love their murdered love one.
The victems family wont be sad, they will have a sence of relief
and justice. Theres always that chance that will be found innocent after he is
dead, but that very rarely happens. Also why should they get a chance to atone
for there sins? The murderer didnt give the victem a break. Gas em`
relief? justice? no neither, if anything it would be revenge. but seeing someone die reguardless of the reason is never easy. and everyone can change, everyone should get another chance to atone. would it be so much worse if the person got life in prison then death. a lame saying i heard but very true..."the problem with an eye for an eye is everyone ends up blind." there are worse punishments then death.
Well too bad the murderers dont share your philosyapy. Well, some would get relief and yes to me and many others it is justice. I just dont feel the need to let them have atonement seeing they didnt give their victem that option.
you act as if you know ever murderers mind. no all murders are the same, nor are all murderers. i know there are some very sick evil people out there but if there is the slightest chance for them to change there ways, to be helped then it should be givin. we don't know why they did what they did. to us it may have been wrong but we were not there. to them it may have been the right thing which is why no one can really say what is justice. though i feel it is wrong to kill i understand humans and that cercumstances can create a situation that makes a very hard choice for someone. i think it is wrong for ALL killing which is why i am against this
if you compare the fact that people usually feel no remorse for the acts that they condemn unto others, isn't it appropriate to say that we simply do not want them in society?
you see, when it comes to murders, alot of them have no such reason to do so. imagine if they are allowed and free out of jail, better off you just kill them in the first place.
consider how most of these criminals are extremists, easily provoked and easily made angry, we must consider the public safety, why should we allow them to live?
they have been sentenced, therefore they should be dead for the sins they committed, and yeah, when it comes to that, they should be condemned by society.
yeah, indeed there has been cases, but undoubtedly, the lawyers are those who help to decide how well it will go, in cases like this, it becomes a relevant issue of having a very powerful argument if the committed criminal should be given a death sentence.
Now, think of this, if we imagine that they are like this, what can we do to understand that they are innocent when upfront, it has been proven and stated.
Ever watched the movie Devil's Advocate?
that is the one film that makes cases like this happen.
the old man has murdered the child, and he ends up going scott free because the lawyer has won the case for him until he realized that he has committed the act , and without remorse.
if we don;t sentence these people, then who will, we let them go after they all act good boy, and then a few years later they kill again, who are we to blame except ourselves?
Murder is never the right thing. Im just say why give these ppl a chance when they gave the victems none. Dont you feel for them?
@Devildude
That guy wasnt really an old man, just middle aged. Hey us ppl in our 30's are not old men!
Also didnt he molest that teen-age girl? He didnt kill her, she
testifyed against him remember?
oh my bad...must be another film...
still my point is, in contrast how do you prove that they are not guilty?
if they are, they will hide, and cases like this one in the movie is that end of story, he gets away scott free and the world has one more criminal to worry about, now imagine is a murderer, how many more lives will be sacrificed before we can really again from scratch prove the fella is a criminal?
and then how many more people must die for achieving justice, all that can be done when we could have had him dead. and then given the appropriate sentence.
that is death and then see how everyone is safer.
merged: 11-20-2005 ~ 02:58am
actually he did kill someone....it was in the start of the film, he was talking about a gun with his hands stained with blood and how he came back and found corpses on the floor, when in actual fact he killed his family....
The Death Sentence and Mercy killings is two completely different things. Personally, I have ambivalent views one the issue.
Death Sentence:
It's true that sometimes people are sentenced to death for a crime they didn'd commite. But don't believe that they are all innocent either. They have prbably just committed a lesser crime such as assult, rape, etc. And it cost a lot of money to kill someone, with the appeals. (at least is U.S.) and it doesn't really reduce criminal rates. Texas has just as much crimes occuring as any other place on earth. But some people DO DESERVE TO DIE. People who commite massive genocide against children (usually after rape or torture) aren't exacly forgivable, justice have to be served. The diamond mine owners in Sierra Lione who own slaves and kills hundreds a day after poor safety equipment in mines don't deserve to live. There was a person in New York who spread AIDS to over 300 people after he knew he had aids, he doesn't deserve to live. There are somethings that are unforgivable. There are criminals who live on society's sympathy and never repent. That's just reality.
On the other hand, people who are usually charged with the Death Sentence is found guilty on being a "future threat to society"/ Ironically enough, life in prison means they'll only be dangers to other criminals.
As for the Mercy Killings, in most occassion, it should be justified. The family of the victim can't take much of their loved ones in a vegetable state, it's just too much for them to take, they too, deserve closure, and need society to understand. It's not the whole world's problem, just the familes'.
I am completely against the death penalty. It has nothing to do with justice (Not that anyone really knows what justice is anyway) but is simply vengeance. Although I am against labeling anything as good or evil I find vengeance to be an utterly stupid and pointless waste of energy. Not only is vengeance a self-sustaining and endless cycle it also solves absolutely nothing; Life can not be restored once taken and deeds can not be undone once committed. Like many have mentioned there is also the problem of executing the wrong individual, which is completely inexcusable.
As for mercy killing, I'm all for it. If a person chooses to end their own life I see no reason why they should be kept alive against their will. If a person has degenerated to the point where they can no longer make that decision, well, I personally think it's better to die than to live as a mindless vegetable.
What is the value of a human life? Where is the value in that life? The value of life is in its potential. It is in what you can do with it. It is in the effect you can have on your fellows. I believe that each individual person decides what effect they have on others. If the only affect a person can have is a negative one, then we have a societal responsibility to remove that potential. A criminal chooses their path. If a person develops true criminal tendencies, then we may need to imprison them permanently to secure the safety of others. However, I think there are individuals that reach certain degrees of evil which can not then be isolated safely. We have a responsibility at that point to eliminate them. You must kill a rabid dog, so that it does not infect others with its own madness. I don't imagine that criminal behavior is catching like a disease, but it does spread its negative emotional affect through its victims, their families, and their communities. The same idea applies to mercy killings. If I feel that I have no potential, I have the right to eliminate myself and the suffering I cause my fellows. I don't imagine there is any real potential in life a truly braindead individual. Keeping a "vegetable" alive a form of greed. It is refusing to let go of something already lost.
death sentence is not simply for revenge.there are alot of other issues that is not known to us and is kept hidden among the judicial system or government.for example,it is simply cheaper to put the prisoner to death than by keeping him alive.it's true that the innocent have died,but technology today is far greater that it was,let's say 10 or even 5 years ago.so the room for mistake is pretty much shrinking.when it all comes down to it, yes i'm up for the death penalty.and i do believe it to be harsh in some coutries,but i guess that's their belief.when it comes down to it part two,we are basing our answers on our thinkings experience.and that depends on genetics and society.that sense poses a rhetorical question,who are we to judge?
mercy killings eh?yup.go ahead.it's your life.and it is the doctors choice if he wants to kill.i'm not just seeing the patients view,but also the doc and the families.
You're kidding, right? The appeal process in most democratic society for capital punishment is 10 years and average 1.6 million (U.S). Feeding a con causes for life causes less than 50,000. See the difference?
merged: 11-27-2005 ~ 02:25pm
The death sentence is about justice. Punishing criminals is about justice. It provides peace to those that have been negatively affected by the criminal. Are you saying that mass genocide people deserve to live? FOR WHAT REASON? I just need to know your reasoning.
Vegeance occurs when the justice fails. People become vigilantes when they believe that the current form of justice system is weak and does not provide protection or fairness. If you remove the death sentence, I wouldn't be surprised if there were an increase in the number of vigilante murders. This would destroy the justice systems. (In countries that currently legalized death sentence)
What exactly is justice anyway? I see that word used to justify so much and yet no one ever gives a good answer. If people are so justified in killing a criminal why do they pay executioners to do the work? If you think the death penalty is so justified become the executioner yourself; Take the criminal's life by your own hand without wearing some silly mask to hide your face and see if you feel so righteous afterward. Wouldn't it be a sight, to see all the juries that ever sentenced a person to death commit the deed themselves.
You ask for what reason mass genocide people deserve to live? What the hell does that have to do with anything? Not all murderers are crazed psychopaths, incapable of feeling remorse or Hitler clones. I ask for what reason any murderer deserves to die. Are all the people they killed going to come back to life? Is all the pain they've caused undone? No? Exactly what do you gain by killing a murderer anyway? The great peace of mind that comes from knowing that you've become one yourself? Peace, Peace! Are you telling me that peace of mind is worth a human life? That is assuming that such a thing actually gives families peace, which I highly doubt. A life for a life is not equivalent exchange, and you aren't even getting a life in return, just peace of mind. Doesn't seem too just to me.
All this assumes murderers are the only ones sentenced to death and that this is all equal. Murder is not the only capital offence; others include treason, aggravated kidnapping, aggravated rape of victim under age 12, capital narcotics conspiracy, and desertion during time of war. These are held by various U.S. states and, in the case of treason and desertion, the federal government. Then there's the fact that there are significant differences in the number of minorities and poor sentenced to death than their counterparts.
As for your last argument, Canada, almost all of Europe, most of Latin America, and Australia all have abolished the death penalty. I really haven't heard of them having an increased number of vigilante killings or the destruction of their justice systems.
Canada, Canada, Canada. The same country where they recal their own president. The same country that legalized marriage between an 18+ years guy and 13+ year old boys. Canada is not exactly the poster country for the mercy and peace.
As for the mass genocide statement, people who killed so many others without a single thought of remorse deserves to die. Don't tell me if someone killed everyone in your family that still would be an ideologue. Criminals feed on sympathy, why are you defending them?
As for the definition for justice, look it up in a dictionary. Any dictionary, the meaning is pretty much the same. Otherwise your open interpretation would destroy every word's meaning in existence. True, I agree with you that not all capital crimes deserves the death sentence, but I'm only saying that it should be an option. Unless of course you are saying that raping an 12 year old is o.k.. The human life that you refer to has committed crimes which dehumanize the victim of the crime, in turn making the criminal "unhuman"
And you've misunderstood about what I said about vigilantes. Just because you haven't heard anything didn't mean it didn't happen. The evolution of the criminal justice theory is that when laws fails to provide "justice or fairness" in the eyes of society or the victims' loved ones, vigilantism occurs. (See Criminal Justice in your Government Book, well, at least in the U.S.) It's inargueable that vengenace is a hollow pursuit, you have to realize vigilantes only seek justice for the victim. The Criminal Justice System is suppose to provide justice to the vicitims, not the criminals.
Why do you care you much about criminal rights anyways? What about the victim? Wasn't that an innocent life ruined/takened?
The death penalty might be about justice to most people, but it is really about efficiency and quality of life. Eliminating the worst sort of incurable criminal is just good sense. Why house and feed a "person" who is not capable of changing their path. I think all life is valuable, but I don't think the value of a single person's life outweights the value of multiple other people's lives. If a person has no potential for good, then why is it so bad to insure the safety of some number of people by getting rid of them. Is death really that bad? I suppose being locked in a box for 10 years or more is better than being dead. If a person is truly sick in the head, then it is infinitely better to end their suffering and that of those surrounding them by excuting them. I think there are many many many fates worse than a controlled death. I personally would rather be dead than raped and abused. I would rather die quickly in a car accident than over the course of several years of cancer. Why is the death penalty infinitely worse than other punishments? I just don't see how killing a rabid dog is meaner than locking it up. I sure don't want to live in a cage where I eat when I'm told, exercise when I'm told, and sleep when I'm told. Why is it that everyone thinks it is worse to be dead. Grow up and look around you. There are plenty of criminals that can be reformed in prison (at least that is what everyone seems to think to which I say "yeah right."), but I think that there are certain individuals that would literately be better off dead.
I support the death penalty. There are some people in this world that shouldn't continue living because they've killed many people...those guys should have never lived. The world would be a better place if we could capture and kill every murderer...which is impossible. And when I say "murderer" I don't mean those who kill someone out of self-defense.
You've completely ignored all the other countries I've mentioned. Besides, it's not like American is without it's own transgressions either.
Genocide requires far more than one person. By your logic you would kill Hitler, but what about everyone who actually physically did the killing? Would you kill all of them? But if the murder is a part of the law doesn't that make those people innocent? Not really as easy as who deserves to die and doesn't now is it? I'm not sympathetic towards murderers, I just don't think people should become murderers for vengeance.
Justice n. quality of being just, fairness.
Kind of vague. So, in turn, we should dehumanize the criminal and become "unhuman" ourselves? I don't really like that idea.
Don't delude yourself, vigilantes do not seek justice for the victim. Killing a person's murderer does not make their murder right or fair. See, I really don't think there is any justice for a lost life. A vigilante seeks closure, seeks retribution for himself. Vengeance really isn't something the dead worry about, being dead and all.
All criminals are not murderers. I care about criminal rights because crime depends on the law, which does not look at circumstances. Someday you might be the guy sitting on death row; I'd care now if I were you. It may have been an innocent life that was ruined/taken, but more killing is not going to undo anything.
Shamshiel, let's go over what we differ line by line. And let's remember, none of this is personal, so don't be so offended.
1. I would kill Hitler, as would you. The people who did the killing were soldiers, sadly, it falls within the legal realm and make it ok. (only on a tecnical basis) Soldiers have to kill people in a war, but usually it's because one person/country is attacking them. But in the case of mass genocide, one side doesn't do anything while the others kill them for no aparent reason. Mindless killers without remorse are a threat to society, no one wants to promote the trend.
2. When criminal dehumanize others, they aren't considered human anymore, or at least that's what I believe. So when we kill them, we aren't dehumanizing anyone because they aren't really human.
3. Definition for Justice- Black's Law Dictionary
Justice
n. 1) fairness. 2) moral rightness. 3) a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/ her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal.
I think it's only fair that you define justice as well, since you argue everyone else's definition is lacking.
4. As the definition states, justice is providing everyone his/her equal due. And this includes the victims of the criminals. True, this does not bring them back, but it does mean that the people who taken/affect their life will not go on in life without being punished. Under your argument, we don't need to punishment criminals because "it won't bring anyone back or why have justice for a lost life."
5. As for the vigilante thing, you are taking this way out of porportion. There would be no vigilantes if people believe there is justice or fairness, thus, less murders in your book. But if you take out death sentence, people might not believe there is justice for them, thus setting trend for vigliantism. (63 % of Americans, at least, Gallop Poll, 2003)
6. I certainly hope you don't think all criminals are murders, but I do thinks some are and should be executed. Crime does depend on the law, but the core ideas didn't change that much since the first forms of governement, did it? What if I was the guy on death row, you ask? What if I'm the guy killed by the criminal? I certainly hope the legal system provides me with my fair due, and I don't believe you would argue otherwise in the same situation.
7. You didn't answer my questions, why are you defending criminals? Why aren't you protecting the victims? If your sole argument is "if I were in their place", will, are you setting up a future defense? What if you were in the victims' place?
Out of curiosity, has anyone close to you ever been killed by a con, or has anyone been dramatically affected by a crime?
The death penalty is a crime against all that is good and intelligent. It is an obvious offence to any Christian god. Also, it may be proved in a long or short time after the execution that that person was innocent. 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 ?
I should have the right to end my life if I so desire. What business is it of anyone else ? It's my personal problem with my own god.
But no one else has the right to take my life with out my prior consent.
ps... If some one needed a mercy killing and they told me to my face, I would do it for them.