Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Warskum

Capital Punishment

Recommended Posts

Consequence-based ethical reasoning is weak. People who don't care about the consequences, or only learn on the basis of individual circumstances, will not learn from it. Repeat offenders are so common, I believe, because the emphasis is on punishment and not rehabilitation. The former does nothing, while the latter at least treats the social disease.

Yes, but surely if consequence-based ethical reasoning is weak then the whole judaeo-christian system which Western policy is largely based on falls apart - weren't the ten commandments (including other sections of the bible too) all about "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" - ie, consequence-based?  Now I agree with you, this is wrong, but you can't simply undo such a massive system which has dominated for a thousand years in Europe and in the minds of those who emigrated.  Give perhaps a more practical solution - oh wait, you already did.

The only way to stop crime is to increase education, decrease class friction, and close the gap between the most and least wealthy.

Good plan.

Would you care to tell me how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like alchemi said, prisons are a joke in westerne countries, in holland you get a nice bed, tv food and you get even money. Some guy even told me that there was this immigrant who had come to holland and he didnt get a permission to stay, so he hit a police, they send him to prison for a while( i belive a month) in that month he got more money then he would have got in his country, so after he was released he hit another police, he has been doing this for a few months now, he wants to collect money so he will leave Holland rich :O, so the prison is actually a hotel for this guy and many others.

If you really want to punish someone, taking away their lives wil have no punishing effect on them. If you just kill them, they won't have the time to tegret their actions or even feel punished, because they're dead. But if you punish someone in a non-lethal way, they will have the rest of their lives to think about how they threw away their lives.

That's just how I think about it...

Your right it isnt a real punishment, BUT it does stops a criminal from murdering again. They might kill again after they get released, so isnt it better to kill one and save others?

Capital punishment is a horrible form of barbarity which should never exist in a civilized country.

Why? Because regardless of any other issues, the fact is that you can never be 100% certain of a man's guilt.

What if you kill an innocent man?

you are right it would really suck to kill an innocent man, but let ASSUME that the murderer is not innocent, i know you cant know 100% sure if he doesnt confess, but lets just asuume, because iw ant to know if you think a man deserves to get a death penalty for killing others.

I see some people think a murderer should be put in jail for the rest of his life, but what if he escapes, is it worth to take the risk, if he escapes he might kill people, dead people cant walk away...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dan your arguement goes against the grain.

All crimes are not committed by the poor or uneducated. Fraud for instance mainly educated weathy people commit that crime. ever heard of Harold Shipman well educated doctor and convicted murderer.

I agree with educating people but to make them law abiding they must have a sense of morality and belive that a crime is wrong.

Prisons cost us millions of pounds and have been shown repeatedly not to work in the majority of cases of hardend crimainals.

A life for a life yes revenge so! People want to see criminals punished losing your life is the ultimate punishment. right it won't teach him to reform but he certainly won't commit another murder will he.

Many youths see prison as a trophy and are happy to reoffend to get in there, why should hard working law abiding people be affraid to walk the streets at night in case they are attacked by a gang of tear aways, who have no fear of the law.

Crime on the isle of man has always been low being publicly birched was a successful deterrent.

Humiliation rather than pride in getting off with caution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but not evil, or morally wrong

"Medieval, in other words."

Why do you speak of "Medieval" as if it was a bad thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to people here, capital punishment is a means to eliminate prisoners and to prevent crimes, right?

Look america, altought there is the Capital Punishment US prisons are overcrowded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to people here, capital punishment is a means to eliminate prisoners and to prevent crimes, right?

Look america, altought there is the Capital Punishment US prisons are overcrowded.

but american legal system is chaotic to say the least very few are given the ultimate punishment and even those sentenced are not always executed so there is still the belief that even if caught i can get off. hence what i said earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to people here, capital punishment is a means to eliminate prisoners and to prevent crimes, right?

Look america, altought there is the Capital Punishment US prisons are overcrowded.

Not al criminals, murderers and crimals like that, maybe the prisons would be even more overcrowd if there wouldnt be death penalty...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, corporate fraud is still a by-product of our capitalist system. Wealthy businessmen believe that they are entitled to more wealth, at anyone's expense. It is another situation in which educational and economic reform could solve, or at least reduce, the problem.

Yes, but surely if consequence-based ethical reasoning is weak then the whole judaeo-christian system which Western policy is largely based on falls apart - weren't the ten commandments (including other sections of the bible too) all about "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" - ie, consequence-based?  Now I agree with you, this is wrong, but you can't simply undo such a massive system which has dominated for a thousand years in Europe and in the minds of those who emigrated.  Give perhaps a more practical solution - oh wait, you already did.

Sure, but things change. The world changes, and humanity changes with it. As we grow more educated and learn more about each other, it becomes easier to recognize why our harmful actions are wrong.

Good plan.

Would you care to tell me how?

Read some of Edric's posts on socialism and communism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To decrease the pressure on US prisons they'd have to kill a lot more criminals then they do right now. Not to mention that people in the death row often forestall their execustion by more then 5 years just by stretching time in court.

Besides the point that you're never 100% certain of a man's guilt, I don't think the death penalty is justifyable. The right of life is the most basic at all, and if it should be used at all it should be reserved to the worst people- like Milosovic.

Plus I can't understand why some people say that prison life, a monotonous life locked away in small concrete chambers having social contact only with convicted criminals and security guards, is not an actual punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capital punishment, even when 100% conviction accuracy is assumed, is not consistent with other aspects of justice in western society.  While it might seem logical that if someone violates another's right to life that their right to life is forfeit, it we are not so barbaric with other crimes.  Last I checked, stealing from theives and raping rapists was still wrong, and as such, killing a murderer should be too.

Society is a contract.  You, the individual, agrees to follow the laws of society in exchange for the protection of the laws of society.  You agree not to murder or steal so you are safe from murder and theft yourself.  When you break the law, it is not an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth.  We are not so barbaric.  Instead, you are removed from society (imprisonment) or if more appropreate, repay society in some way (fine or community service).  I don't see why murder, while it should most certainly be the most souvere in punishment, should be fundamentally different than any other offense.  It would be inconsistent.

And besides, that's just assuming accurate convictions.  When you throw in the inevitable fallability of any justice system, the whole ball game changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, i dunno..... Agreed, it is a disaster if someone is executed who was completely innocent. But i don't feel like keeping a murderer who has killed/raped multiple people alive.... kill him and begone with it.... i don't care how he feels, if he is relieved or not to get the death sentence.... just get rid of him....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," as Ghandi said. As a society, we claim to be able to make decisions about justice and ethics, and we have decided that killing is wrong. Then we turn around and kill the people who violate our rules of justice and ethics. Doesn't seem quite right, does it? (As ACElethal said.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly, capital punishment has large problems concerned with proof.

If it was cear beyond all doubt that someone was and would, if ever released still be a great danger to society, and even while imprisoned is violent and unrepentant, then it might in exceptional cases, be prudent to execute, partly to remove the problem, partly to deter from violence prisoners who are already serving life imprisonment anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, the same results could be obtained (perhaps even easier) by sending such offenders to various nasty fates involving keeping them alive for a very long time indeed, but not too comfortably.

And think of the entertainment revenue that could come in by watching amusing public executions or predicaments. Who's going to commit crime X when they know that if they are caught they will be left in a tank with two or three pirhana for a while? Just long enough for things to get messy before they are taken out, hospitalised, and then sent back in again until the public stop paying.

Now that's a deterant. Of course things like this would only really be applicable in cases where guilt is really truly certain. Or something.

Did I spell pirhana correctly? Hmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the point is that killing them if they're still violent means we don't have to spend twice as much on them keeping them alive than it costs for everyone else. It won't make much overall savings, but in terms of logistics and practicality, it seems more sensible. Pirhana tanks are a pointless expense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a proper justice system, capital punishment is generally more costly to society than life imprisonment.  Naturally, when execution is the goal of the prosecution it is appropreate that there a greater number of steps taken to ensure the guilt of the defendant.  These steps, in the form of court appeals, hearings and inquiries, are much more costly than just sending the guilty party to prison for life with after a fair but standard trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Court appeals and similar procedures are vital to ensuring that the first "standard trial" is indeed fair. Expense is unimportant in questions of justice---whether costly or cheap, capital punishment is disgraceful. Like so many other elements of the conservative philosophy, this attacks the symptoms rather than the disease. It does not ensure justice, nor does it eliminate crime, nor does it have any clear benefits to society. So what's the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we could also give the people sentenced to death a new use..... ;) I dunno, new medicins need to be tested, lions are to be fed, the first human to go to mars with 10 days of air... stuff like that... giving the death sentenced a new goal to live... (or die) for :P . Heheh j/k ofcourse... even though lions realy do need to be fed  ::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the point is that killing them if they're still violent means we don't have to spend twice as much on them keeping them alive than it costs for everyone else. It won't make much overall savings, but in terms of logistics and practicality, it seems more sensible. Pirhana tanks are a pointless expense.

Yes, I know. But people would pay to watch. You know they would. Might cover the costs and even make a tidy profit. More likely if it were televised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
even though lions realy do need to be fed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tell me whats better? Kill the murderer and know for 100% that he wont be able of killing any one any more, or put him in jail for the rest of his live and take the chance that he might escape and kill more people, its better to kill one to safe many IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Kill the murderer and know for 100% that he wont be able of killing any one any more, or put him in jail for the rest of his live and take the chance that he might escape and kill more people, its better to kill one to safe many IMO."

But if you execute, what do you do with the chance that he wasn't a murderer in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tell me whats better? Kill the murderer and know for 100% that he wont be able of killing any one any more, or put him in jail for the rest of his live and take the chance that he might escape and kill more people, its better to kill one to [save] many IMO.

As Nema pointed out, he might not be a murderer. Furthermore, the idea that all of these mad murderers will escape from prison seems a little far-fetched; after all, I haven't heard of any jailbreaks recently. And maybe we can divert the money saved on executions towards making prisons more secure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our society places the security of an individual's liberty over the safety of the multitude. For example, would you rather imprison a hundred men to save society, because you cannot tell who is the one murderer among them? or do you take the chance the murderer will kill more people in order to imprison the one man among the hundred who is at fault? We place so much value on the rights that all people are entitled to that there is a great amount of risk in executions. Those who are to be executed should be those who, beyond any reasonable doubt, committed the crime. Meaning, they either confessed, or they were caught in the act. To execute those who were convicted in close trials or circumstantial evidence is worrisome, because this takes the chance you kill an innocent man. Since sentancing, in America, at least, is up to the presiding justice, it should be that judge's decision whether or not there is sufficient evidence and cause to warrant an execution. If not, we must rely on his good judgement simply to undertake the cost of imprisoning an individual for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×