Capital Punishment, for or against?

Execute him if proven guilty after proper trial.

Yes, that is what I meant. I'd be the last to deny that reformation is very useful. But about the examples you gave, these pathological criminals that cannot be reformed, they illustrate my point. Why would you lock them up for life if you could execute them? This isn't an act of revenge, or at least it's not supposed to be seen that way (getting back to that when replying to Pika).

I don't see it as a means to get revenge. And there is a lot more to capital punishment than that. If it eases people's minds because they had their vengeance all the better I guess, but I think it's proposterous to use the "eye for an eye" as a counter argument since it is not necessarily the main reason and definitely not the only aspect that plays a role.

I never said we should use it lightly. But we should keep the option open instead of mindlessly forbidding it.

See above.
As long as there are human beings involved, death penalty is dangerous. Another hazard to it is social bias, for example racism. I admit that we'd have to root out these risks to an acceptable extent first before actually introducing or even continuing with capital punishment. Nevertheless it'd be a good idea for the future.

I've already hinted at this. I think you know as well as I do that I only implied instant-death methods. But I do mean cheap instant-death methods, which include methods that leave a mess.

"Removal from the benefits of society?" How is this free from being seen as a form of revenge while capital punishment is subject to it? That doesn't make any sense. Furthermore I'm against criminals "choosing" their punishment in any way whatsoever. That's not how justice works or ever should work.

As a matter of fact I dislike the idea as a whole. "Leave them to their own devices"? Your worst criminals are no angels. Who's to say they might not strangle eachother for more food or a higher spot in the pecking order? Sure, you could guard them but you'd have to pay for the guards and for the extra transport (relief of these guards, additional supplies from time to time etc).

To conclude I'd like to point out that remote islands often suffer from tsunamis, hurricanes etc. You'd also have to take into account the capacity of prisoners it can detain, what nation the island belongs to and whether the island isn't better off to be used for something else.

That's how the law works I'm afraid, it's no different for other suspicious lifelong imprisonment cases that are convicted now.
The percentage of consent is still quite a bit higher than your average murder's therefore they are hardly ever comparable.
Or how about this? Every case wherein death penalty is considered (I assume there wouldn't be too many, like I said I wouldn't use it lightly) requires a voting. If the percentage pro death penalty exceeds say 70%, then the criminal is executed. Only problem with this is that it might cancel out or even overcompensate the reduction in costs that death penalty may have had to offer (internet voting could be an option but then we have a hackers threat to take into account). We'd have to wait for the "hurrr we can't condemn another person's life" preachers to come to their senses first too, in order for the system to be efficient...

No, it's a form from cutting expenses with a side motive of discouraging people to actually break the law.


To sum it all up: death penalty is extremely useful in capable hands, and in capable hands only. Maybe we're not ready for it yet, but we'll have to work our way towards it. Let's just say that a lot of con-arguments I read here are pure bull. You won't stop progress forever.

 

Pathological people cannot be reformed but they also do not just merit other people being pathological and conducting their deaths. It -is- an act of revenge and also deciding pathologically that they have no right to exist because they are taking up space and people want some cowboy sense of justice. This is not progress. This is stepping backwards. Why would I lock them up for life rather than executing them? Because if they can be held safely behind bars, maybe they can contribute something to life that they could not when dead. Some of these people are very smart and if they do not have people to kill or things to plot, they may do something more.

Also pathological criminals can be studied psychologically and perhaps it will assist us in figuring out how people grow to be this way. The state of mind seems alien to those with a conscience but already tests have shown quite a few interesting details and we have learned signs of pathological behavior, as well as more on schizophrenia and other brain conditions, as well as studies on molesters, child molesters and rapists that have formed some of the top serial killers and rapists, and we are learning more on what makes someone turn into a spree killer, etc. What is learned could prevent crimes of this magnitude and also help people recognize the behavior in children even so that they can possibly be helped early. Not all pathological people are criminals. Not all criminals are pathological. There are many pathological people out amongst society that are fine. Telling the difference could be key to seeing if there is at all any chance these people can ever be helped etc.

It eases people's minds because the killer can't get them anymore and they can be at peace? It also means that the people know the ******* got what was coming to him. In the end, it is over revenge and to close the book on that criminal's life. If the person was to be in prison for life with no chance ever of parole, why would it matter to those who aren't out for revenge and just want to ensure the person never leaves prison alive? People go to watch executions. If it wasn't for revenge and to wait to hear that criminal say something of remorse to that family etc, it wouldn't be done.

I fail to see how capital punishment is a good idea in the future. It's a failed idea that just makes the justice stood for as bloody as the criminals it catches. The only reason that capital punishment should be used is for extreme circumstances where holding a person in prison safely is not an option. Otherwise the justice system becomes as barbaric and awful as the criminals. If you can say pathological criminals -deserve- death, then it is biased. Judges that can say that are not impartial. They are taking the life of a person who is helpless and deciding to have the person killed. The person cannot do -anything- to anyone if he or she is locked up. This is exactly why there is such a rule regarding 'excessive force' that civilians and officers of the law must follow. Judges should also be expected to follow this law and only the very worst, most dangerous criminals that will harm others regardless of being in prison, should get. Anyone else and yes, I cannot see it as anything but revenge. Again, what is the difference between having a full life sentence with no chance of parole versus the death penalty if it is not for revenge and assuming that the person is getting what he deserved?

I agree that making an island for prisoners would fail. That's been attempted enough and well, it would just backfire and be lame. Also, the world is running out of continents to send their ruffians and there's a difference with excommunicating lesser criminals versus serial killers and rapists etc. It's also more of a waste of money to force people to work out there and be hired to shoot anyone that tries to leave, and if people escaped it would just be lame to cope with.

In the end, I'd propose instead something like Fort Leavenworth for civilians. It works to hold the military's worst criminals, so I don't see why a civvy version couldn't be made for those who are never leaving prison. It also gets these particular people who would go to death row out of the way solidly from society and yet they still have somewhere to sleep, bathe, etc and be monitored for life. Having one place for them all or a few in each country to divide them up, would probably also in the end save money and less 'accidents' would happen in other prisons.

I would never put the vote to people on the streets. The reason we have juries in the first place and a judge that ignore the media is because the media plays up things and tilts them one way or the other and it can affect judgment of the person on trial. This would defy the whole purpose of the law and the person would not get a fair trial.

You will never discourage a pathological person from breaking the law. No way, no how, by fear. Just because the person can no longer fit in society does not mean they deserve to live absolutely pathetically. I do not think they should live better than the 'poor class' of society, but they aren't ever going anywhere so they should not live without some things so as to not just let them live out in complete misery. Being isolated from others is a big misery on its own and that's what they've earned. The only things I don't think they should ever get are computers or ways to go online in any form or fashion to communicate with the outside world, which for some reason in some countries is permitted. Books and other things, as long as they are safe with them, I don't see the problem. After all, just because they are lifers doesn't mean they should be denied everything.

People are still human. It will never be useful in capable hands because none of us can be like the grim reaper and judge first off, if someone is absolutely guilty and second off, if they can ever be redeemable. We do not have the ability to look in someone's mind. Therefore the law will always be bound to make mistakes. Until such a time as we are able to mentally scan someone and know there is no chance the person will ever change and the person is unfit for living because he/she is a danger to all around him or her, I'm sorry but the death penalty is not progress. It's stepping back and still will always be a method that people who want revenge and think that -fear- works to prevent criminals from doing what they will, will try to employ. They are thinking more about themselves and what they want to see rather than the giant picture out there. The law should not have to become killers to get rid of killers that can no longer kill. It makes no sense at all. If that is the case, then what's so wrong with vigilantism, police brutality, and people taking the law into their own hands? Why should the law placate to people who just want revenge instead of realizing if a criminal is gone for life, the person is -never leaving prison-?

If anything, progress to me would mean we are able to study those who can never leave prison and as said earlier, learn what it is that makes these people become what they are so that we can learn to isolate these people sooner and stop crimes earlier. It also means we could get help to children going down the path early on. Many criminals have quite crappy pasts involving bad parenting, mental conditions and bullying etc. They become angry and take it out on animals often enough, then other people. There are habits we all ready know to watch for and we can learn more to help lower crime. Those who can never adjust, if they are out of society, they are gone. So again, how is the death penalty not outdated? What can it offer except to get rid of criminals by allowing other people to bloody their hands that should not be doing so as they are representatives of the law? Point out to me here how it is superior when you lay on other people the responsibility of killing someone that is already apprehended and can do jack crap to anyone else again.

 

The Death Penalty depends on the offense in my opinion. Eating someone's liver while they are watching. That seems Death Penalty worthy.

 

Why? That sounds more like a psychological condition to me. The muncher could get treated and be released back into society as a reformed man.

 

I'm pretty sure that isn't actually possible.

 

Exactly. Forbidding it is just as wrong as using it. Using it has some advantages, while forbidding it "mindlessly" just leaves more criminals out there.

I completely agree. Why should a criminal choose his punishment? That's completely redudant.
They should be removed from society, but not from the benefits of society.
Put the worst criminals to work, make them do something GOOD for society while separated from the main public.



As for the island idea, I think that's even worse. The criminals would kill each other and even though that may seem like a good thing, it would just be a waste of land. We could use islands for resorts, citys, but we should not leave them to criminals.

I don't know if we should leave to the general public, but a committee of sorts. I'm not sure how it would work, but the public as a whole should not be responsible...

exactly. Why should any cell have any form of luxury at all?

Yes, that is also a good idea. Study the criminals, but we should do SOMETHING about them. Criminals can escape from prison, that's not unheard of. Even the criminals who are still in prison can be a threat. The ones against Capital Punishment keep using the innocent person excuse. Well what happens when someone who is innocent goes to prison? They can be beaten, raped, even killed. I'm not saying it'll happen to every person, nor am I saying that we should kill every criminal who gets arrested to prevent this. But just because a criminal is locked up does mean he is not a threat.

The "********" did get what was coming to him. Don't you think he deserves it for what he did (depending on his crime of course)?
There's always a small chance the criminal can escape.
Why lock him up for life where he can work out, have a tv, have three meals a day while some people in the world can't even afford three meals?

 

Putting pathological criminals to good use is easier said than done. If it doesn't get them out of prison early, why would they lift a finger?
Also, giving them tasks that can be completed by free civilians is rather unfair. I don't know hom the unemployment rates are in your country but I'd prefer keeping jobs to those who have proven themselves to be of definite constructive use, i.e. the citizens.
Studying them isn't all that useful either: we already charted the symptoms of disorders such as sociopathy and when push comes to shove every case is slightly different anyway. What is left to study?

The difference between capital punishment and lifelong imprisonment is or should be reduced expenses and conserved space, as I've clearly said before.
That is how I see it, not as a form as revenge (others might see it as the latter but that doesn't concern me nor does it reduce the aforementioned advantages). I find it moronic how the death penalty has more of a vengeful feel to it than any other frorm punishment, and how people turn blind of the other benefits the procedure has to offer because of it.

This leaves the "practice what you preach" argument. Well, as I mentioned before, locking people up is against the law as well. Capital punishment is only is only more dangerous to practice because of its irreversibility. Of course since we're dealing with a human life, hard facts and/or a confession are necessary. I've said this from the beginning and I stick by it.
Another necessity for it to work well, and it may have been a mistake to not mention this sooner, is a clear and foolproof outline of the violations where the death penalty can be considered in the verdict. I opt for imprisonment in borderline cases.

By the way, when I was talking about "reducing luxury in cells", I did not just refer to pathological criminals. I meant in general. Wouldn't it be so that smaller would-be delinquents would reconsider before violating the law if they knew that a cell of few luxuries would await them? I do believe so.

 

I agree that forbidding the death penalty entirely is foolish. However, again, not for the reasons you do. There seem to be more innocent people that die from the death penalty than serial pathological criminals that get out of prison by means of escape.

That is my point. Put the worst criminals in secure areas where they cannot harm others or themselves. If they can and do harm each other or guards etc, this is when I would propose the death penalty be used as incarceration is not enough for these people and they continue to carry on crimes. Otherwise, I see no reason to put the people on death row, unless again, there is another reason they are a danger to society and they have a likely chance of getting out instead of being a lifer.

I don't think by the acts judicially that protect a hearing and jurors, that anyone but judge or a panel of judges should make such a call. Other people simply are not privy to the trial, and even if they are, they do not tend to understand things or are too emotional or emotionless concerning the welfare of another person's life. In other words, we don't let armchair warriors dictate moves in football; we shouldn't allow them to do it for court hearings that are so serious either.

Because some people cannot fit into society but it does not mean they deserve nothing. Some people without the distraction of society and the things that enraged or frustrated them, actually do calm down and if they are going to be there a while or for life, why not give them some things to do? I'd say a good way to promote it would be that the criminals do some labor for the rights to extracurricular materials and such. Of course, still, they should have no contact with the outside world save for visitors.

Serious criminals do not tend to escape from prison that often. You are right. They can be a threat if that happens. However, with reform to detail who is going to be a lifer or on death row, and these people are not around those who get 'outdoor' privileges etc, this is highly likely to happen even less than it does now. Just as the ones against capital punishment use the excuse of 'innocents pay for crimes with loss of life that can never be returned', those who support capital punishment keep bringing up that the criminals 'deserve' to die and that they are a danger. I consider this kind of a paranoia considering prison breaks of serious criminals does not happen that often. For those that -are- a serious threat and -could- escape or do brutality etc in prison, these are the people in particular that the death penalty may have to be considered for. For those who -can be held-, I don't see what the issue is here that keeps being brought up. It's irrelevant so the only standing point that in the end anyone has is that those who support the death penalty want the person dead.

Have you ever thought about what made the criminal decide to do what he or she did? The criminal's background? Also, their mental condition? There are a lot of cruel people out there who do things to others and it only gets found out after someone wigs out about it because those people know how to avoid being found out. You cannot be privy to every case that goes on involving those who do extremely violent crimes. Yes, the person has earned the right to be out of society for life for the travesties he or she has caused but again, with the death penalty -someone- is doing the killing. Whether it's all nice and neat or its with a shot to the head, the law shouldn't be killing those who are actually detained and -can- by all purposes, be held without a danger to others. Why should criminals -not- get meals a day? TV, I agree that they probably don't need, but what's wrong with books or things that do not attach the person to the outside world to plan things such as breaking out of prison? Again, this is a revenge point and that is not what the law is about.

The death sentence is a crock of crap, costs more than just letting someone be in prison for life, and again, why is the law killing an apprehended criminal that can do no more harm to anyone? As I said before, if that criminal shows hostility and is a danger to those around in incarceration, -that- is when the death penalty should be done. Less questions and times with lawyers bouncing things around would also happen because one could get a binding law that declares that a death penalty could be enacted should said prisoners attempt escape, violent acts, etc. Then it is on the criminal's behavior to either do as he or she should or he/she is done. My point is this. Why are people in jail for stupid crap like possession of drugs, when we should actually be holding criminals instead like child molesters, rapists etc? The space for -other- criminals should be exactly for the criminals we do not want in the streets because rehabilitation will fail. It shouldn't be for those who are actually in there for stupid stuff. Those people can be held elsewhere and get out sooner with forced rehabilitation.

No matter what happens, whether the death penalty remains or not, the prisons -must- sooner or later be reformed. With rehabilitation services for lesser criminals, there would actually be more jobs, assistance and ways of dealing with addiction, anger management and other minor issues that can dramatically straighten up someone's life. Prison for lifers would not cost anymore than it does because in the end, the costs of the death penalty are very high anyway. You don't have to build new facilities. I fail to see how that would even come into play. If anything, you'd need less space if prisons were reformed right and we didn't hold people for possession of drugs (not selling necessarily) or for prostitution (which is a deal between two people anyway) and stuff that in the end is just lame to me.

Agreed.

 

For or against capital punishment?

Could the person the 'muncher' murdered ever come back into society (existence)?

 

It's mandatory. If they don't obey, they lose privileges. Solitary, no television, less food, rough treatment, no phone calls etc.

We're not paying the criminals, so why not? It's like introducing machines into the workforce. Jobs are lost, but it means humanity advances.

We don't know everything about these disorders. Each case gives new insight into the field. The research of the diseases of the mind is far from over. Until we can look at an unborn baby and say what they will become, we should strive onwards.

Capital punishment costs more. And before you start on bullets through the brain being cheaper, remember that you want the approval of the public. A lot of people dislike these ideas. There's a reason they're not used. Space in prisons being used up? Use that cash on building more, or on rehabilitating people. There are not enough people who would get the death penalty to clear the prisons. A decent rehab program would be far more productive. Humanity is moving towards the notions of empathy. We should aid those in prison instead of spending money on murder.

Confessions can be forced out. Around a quarter of confessions are false. Also, a person must be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". Surely if we can botch that criterion up, we can also go wrong with "hard facts".

No, because no one plans on getting caught.

 

But how does putting a guy in jail solve something as big as terrorism, though I don't like it, I do believe that capital punishment should be the answer sometimes. The Twin Towers, the London Bombings... etc, how can putting one guy in jail completely stop these things. Jack the ripper and the Zodiac murderer probably would of been killed if they were found and copycats wouldn't of attempted to run around everywhere.

I don't believe that capital punishment should be in all countries, but some who are willing to do it, only capital punishment should be used in extreme cases that can ruin many lives... like terrosim.​

 

OBJECTION!

Jack the Ripper and the Zodiac Murderer were copied because they didn't get caught. If they were caught, regardless of whether they were killed, their mystique would have vanished very quickly. Sticking someone in with common criminals decreases their standing just as well as killing them. Better, in fact. Killing makes them into "martyrs" of a kind. Same goes for terrorists. Sticking one or two people in jail won't stop terrorism, but killing one or two people makes them into martyrs and that's even worse.

 

I already said that, and I fully agree.

Some of these people don't give a damn if they die or not because in their mind it is dying for their cause, which is the ultimate sacrifice they can make.

Suicide bombers don't just kill the people in the area around the event, they kill themselves too, because to die for your cause is the ultimate. Giving terrorists who are caught the Death Penalty can actually make them a hero in the eyes of their followers.

Besides which terrorism is a very subjective issue, what one country classes as terrorism another doesn't. Look at Ireland and the IRA for example, they are a form of terrorism, but not everyone classes them as.

If we were to start executing terrorists under our definition and our opinions of what a terrorist is, then doesn't that to some extent validate their actions in the killing of other people? Maybe to them, the people they are killing are the people who need to be disposed of.

This applies to all cases, not just terrorism,heck, some killers honestly believe that they are removing bad elements that need to be disposed of. How is that different to a judge sitting there and condemning someone to die?

 

*sigh* I've seen you in better shape Pika...

Gee, I think wanting to execute him would make me for, don't you think?

Slavery much?

I didn't even think they'd be paying them. Killing them has advantages without losing jobs. Next!

Who says you will ever? And how is this different from your "What if he's innocent?" argument? Would you dare to deny it the privileges of a normal life without being 100% certain? Because don't illude yourself by thinking that you will be so sure.

Also, I've already said that each case has different nuances which you will never be able to predict. Each case gives new insight on cases given that they are similar enough, which they rarely are.
Aside from those, we know plenty.

A lot of people dislike the death penalty altogether. We're not here to discuss how it is, we're here to discuss how it should be.

I agree that confessions alone aren't enough. Confessions and evidence would work well together though. Also, if the criminal knows he'll be "off the hook" (by death), he just might confess a tad sooner compared to when a lifetime of imprisonment without any chance of getting out is presented to him.

Doesn't mean they won't take into account that they might. You'd be surprised how many people pull themselves over the line by saying "Meh, haven't got much to lose anyway." A reduction in luxury can discourage those people and make them reconsider the risks.

Who cares? Fine, let them be a hero in their eyes. Why should that concern us? Or maybe we should fight them with tranquilizer guns from now on. That would prevent them from becoming martyrs right?

*is tempted to repeat himself for the umpteenth time but realises he doesn't have the time do so*

 

That is easier said than done. The only reason what you're saying works at the moment is because, currently, that is the only option we have.

Because money is essentially the predominant associate of crime (most are money related), something would have be done on a monetary level to change conditions in order to alter the behavior of the people.

Again, it's easier said than done, and it would take more than just a mindset. It's vague, too. Much like capital punishment.

Those are two extremely different things. Humanity doesn't advance because of machines. In its current state, it backfalls.

 

I disagree with what you said in bold. Well, it might be true but we need to nuance it. Most smaller crimes are money-related, by which I mean that these are less urgent to reform.
Also, tell that to the opposers of capital punishment who see said reformation as an alternative to capital punishment. I just wanted to point out that the two can be combined.

 

Repetitive murder would be it. Even then, I'm not sure if we have the right to take a person's life.

 

Yeah, it would. Thanks for the answer! :)