The Death Penaly - Yea Or Nay?

[John Scott]

To answer G10's suggestion about someone who was beaten and raised in a hell as a child, giving them the opportunity for rehabilitation, that is good in theory, and it is tried, but you can't remove the possibility of the death penalty because of the special circumstance.

Suggesting that the environment is to blame for a murderer's actions ignores the ability of the murderer to comprehend the consequences of his actions.

[Chris@Crane]

Originally Posted by John Scott

You're very perceptive. I should give you a brownie button, but I'm plum out.

what a shame.

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

You're taking into account that murder has only one meaning in the judicial system. That doesn't equal the facts.

I don't fully understand the definition of murder, the judicial system, or 'the facts', I admit. I'm just trying to back up my opinion with my perception of the facts.

I'm not questioning anyone else's views on the topic.

Originally Posted by John Scott

Depends on the law. Traditionally, the relatives have the right to exact justice. These days, murderers get off with as little as 12 months. Shoot, some murderers don't even go to prison.

It wasn't too long ago that posters were posted "wanted: dead or alive" which pretty much gave the right to kill the person before he was even tried for the crime.

In modern society, the idea is that citizens give up the right to direct justice, and only the state has that right. And states do hunt down and exact justice, sometimes, and they aren't prosecuted.

Another example of a situation where it is hard to draw the line. Again I'm not suggesting you were debating that.



Anyway, I'm going to 'respectfully excuse' myself now, thank you

[John Scott]

Another example of a situation where it is hard to draw the line.

It is hard to draw the line sometimes.

If we think of the social contract in its basic form, we get the right to freedom - and every other right - by agreeing to not harm others.

If we violate that contract, we lose the benefits of it. We are no longer a party to the contract, so how can we demand its benefits?

So, without any rights - as we have forfeited them - how could we complain if somebody comes along and kills us?

Of course, we reject that black and white version, and try to mete out justice that is commensurate with the infraction.

By all means, abolish the death penalty. But you don't have the right to set loose a murderer on society. Forgiveness may sound good, but if you consider all the innocent lives lost because we paroled a murderer, it loses it's warmth and fuzziness.

[G10]

Can we truly see what goes on in someone's mind and if they are mentally ill or not? On countless times, psychiatrists have fought amongst themselves as one says a person IS ill and another says NOT and yet we sentence someone to death based on an infalible opinion?

Originally Posted by John Scott

It is hard to draw the line sometimes.

If we think of the social contract in its basic form, we get the right to freedom - and every other right - by agreeing to not harm others.

If we violate that contract, we lose the benefits of it. We are no longer a party to the contract, so how can we demand its benefits?

So, without any rights - as we have forfeited them - how could we complain if somebody comes along and kills us?

Of course, we reject that black and white version, and try to mete out justice that is commensurate with the infraction.

By all means, abolish the death penalty. But you don't have the right to set loose a murderer on society. Forgiveness may sound good, but if you consider all the innocent lives lost because we paroled a murderer, it loses it's warmth and fuzziness.

Fair do's, good point and tough to argue..

[John Scott]

Can we truly see what goes on in someone's mind and if they are mentally ill or not?

Impossible. It's entirely impossible to see what goes on in another person's mind.

On countless times, psychiatrists have fought amongst themselves as one says a person IS ill and another says NOT and yet we sentence someone to death based on an infalible opinion?

Indeed, let them fight over a point that has no bearing on anything.

Mentally ill or not, if I eat a pie, I should be obliged to pay for the pie. To say otherwise is to say that the pie maker is morally obligated to provide pies to all the mentally ill persons who wander his way.

Whether or not I kill an innocent person, intentionally or unintentionally, with malice or without, I've incurred the same debt - a life - and should be obligated to pay that debt.

[thegamerslink]

Question, if you are aware that a murder is going to take place. Or you see a murder in progress and do nothing to prevent it or get the person being murdered help. Are you not in fact then an accomplice to murder?

On this premise, if you have someone who has committed murder and you know this person has no remorse and even at their own admission will do it again because they don't care, or because they enjoy it, and before you mention it, that in itself would qualify someone as being mentally unstable, makes no difference. And you allow them the opportunity to live so they have the ability to do it again in the future are you then not an accomplice to that future murder?

[G10]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

Question, if you are aware that a murder is going to take place. Or you see a murder in progress and do nothing to prevent it or get the person being murdered help. Are you not in fact then an accomplice to murder?

Yes, if one did not even call for help/ring the police then yes, that would be an accomplice and definately wrong..

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

On this premise, if you have someone who has committed murder and you know this person has no remorse and even at their own admission will do it again because they don't care, or because they enjoy it, and before you mention it, that in itself would qualify someone as being mentally unstable, makes no difference. And you allow them the opportunity to live so they have the ability to do it again in the future are you then not an accomplice to that future murder?

Yes one would be... But saying that, why is this person allowed on the streets again if the system is aware of this?

You see, I have spent some time with mentally disabled people and worked with them, of different levels as my brother is mentally disabled, and some one can't even tell that they are so my opinion may be a little biased based on this..

I know that this is a hard concept for some to understand but if someone is PURE EVIL, believe me, there is ALWAYS a reason for this, be it life conditioning or mentally disabled - I know that this sounds like I am defending the criminals and this is NOT my intention here, I am just saying that there is always two sides to a situation.

[sitetutor]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

Question, if you are aware that a murder is going to take place. Or you see a murder in progress and do nothing to prevent it or get the person being murdered help. Are you not in fact then an accomplice to murder?

On this premise, if you have someone who has committed murder and you know this person has no remorse and even at their own admission will do it again because they don't care, or because they enjoy it, and before you mention it, that in itself would qualify someone as being mentally unstable, makes no difference. And you allow them the opportunity to live so they have the ability to do it again in the future are you then not an accomplice to that future murder?

Absolutely, and if someone like McVeigh was to live in prison, it must be even harder for the victim's families to know that the person who killed their loved ones is still alive.

[thegamerslink]

There is a definite difference in your example though that makes one deserving the death penalty and the other not. The one that was beaten tortured or not during childhood, while it may be a mental thing that caused him or her to snap it is still knowledge to them the difference of right and wrong. And they are still responsible for their actions.

In the second example you say the flaw that only occurs in certain accidents. So the person or persons are then taking a calculated risk(which they don't have the right to do agreed) that there will be no accidents that meet those exact conditions. And as you said if it does they will be minimal in number, again wrong.

But here's the difference. The person that kills directly does so directly with forethought or out of passion. The death is a direct result of their actions.

In the case of the car manufacturer. The flaw knowingly exists and they don't let the flaw be known so people can make their own choice whether they accept the chance or not. If someone then dies it is an indirect death. The death occurred because they directly held information but they had no hand in the actual accident taking place. So they would be similar to an accomplice to murder, not the actual murderer.

[thegamerslink]

That is why you have innocent by insanity. And the Supreme Court has also decided that Mentally Retarded and Children under the age of 18 are constitutionally protected against Capital Punishment under the Eight and Fourteenth Amendments.

My son lived with his mother from the age of 10. She was physically and mentally abusive. She also kept him away from me for fear of losing child support. I'm not getting at this makes him a killer, what I am saying though is this, his mother caused damage, he is now 20 and has been living with me the last couple of years. What I tell him when I have to deal with these problems or when they come out is this.......when you were younger bad things happened to you and they were out of your control then. You know what of what happened was right and what was wrong. You are 20 now, so the responsibility of how you deal with that now is yours. You have the choice, the ability to make the choices you know to be right, and you have been shown what things there are that are problems. If you can't deal with them then it's your responsibility to come to others to help you deal with the problems.

This didn't translate into writing as well but you get the idea. In other words, if he goes out and kills his date one night or whatever and then someone says it's because his mother was physically and mentally abusive then I don't accept that as an acceptable reason. He still has the ability of reason.

When someone is Mentally Retarded that is a completely different story.

[G10]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

My son lived with his mother from the age of 10. She was physically and mentally abusive. She also kept him away from me for fear of losing child support. I'm not getting at this makes him a killer, what I am saying though is this, his mother caused damage, he is now 20 and has been living with me the last couple of years. What I tell him when I have to deal with these problems or when they come out is this.......when you were younger bad things happened to you and they were out of your control then. You know what of what happened was right and what was wrong. You are 20 now, so the responsibility of how you deal with that now is yours. You have the choice, the ability to make the choices you know to be right, and you have been shown what things there are that are problems. If you can't deal with them then it's your responsibility to come to others to help you deal with the problems.

I am sorry to hear that about your son dude, not very nice at all.

I am sure you are more aware than most by your experiences then that sometimes, no matter how old one is, the mind has been completely scarred beyond reality and rationalising, even though other parts of it work perfectly fine.

It is definately a tricky and gray area and one that I am glad that I do not have a deciding opinion on within society as I would need to understand more and view/weigh up other opinions also..

[thegamerslink]

That is why I am sure, not everyone that goes before the court for murder falls under the death sentence penalty.

[sfod_d223]

I voted YAY! and to a certain extent look toward a day when those criminals that perform heinous acts get caught and have reciprocal treatment done to them as a form of punishment.

[Rankenstein]

I support it, in cases where there is no doubt. For example McVeigh, Harold Shipman, Chikatilo. I'm stressing the no doubt section. Not 'beyond reasonable doubt', but 'no doubt'.

[EmailRevealer]

It gives the Govt too much poer to abuse.
I've seen a LOT of people completely and totally railroaded by the justice system. Stauff that gives me chills.

[thegamerslink]

Originally Posted by EmailRevealer

It gives the Govt too much poer to abuse.
I've seen a LOT of people completely and totally railroaded by the justice system. Stauff that gives me chills.

When you think of the Death Penalty, do you see it as an unrestricted sentence that is handed out at the will of the Prosecutor and a Judge?

[Harveyj]

Just to **** stir a little:
http://www.v7n.com/forums/politics/9...tml#post939897

Murder has nothing to do with morality. Even if murder was morally correct, we would still have an obligation to oppose it under the terms of the social contract.

The social contract doesn't give a rat's ass about morality.

The true and legitimate function of the government is to uphold the rights of individuals. Rights of individuals, not morality. Repeat that a hundred times.

So we should be keeping them alive, right?

I'm still amazed that people seem to think that death is a worse fate than being locked away for the rest of your life, with little to no outside contact, in a minute cell.
Death's not a punishment. It's an end to the possibility of being punished.

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Harveyj

So we should be keeping them alive, right?

Here is a tip:

All humans have DNA. (premise)
Bob is a human. (premise)
Bob has DNA. (conclusion)

See how that works? Premises followed by a conclusion.

Originally Posted by Harveyj

So we should be keeping them alive, right?

Your conclusion is lacking a premise or two.

[thegamerslink]

The Death Penalty is not an imposition of morality on a criminal. And if you stop and think about it, ultimately it is not meant as a punishment. It is meant as a prevention of repeated opportunities of the act.

[aimhigh]

Originally Posted by thegamerslink

The Death Penalty is not an imposition of morality on a criminal. And if you stop and think about it, ultimately it is not meant as a punishment. It is meant as a prevention of repeated opportunities of the act.

I have to agree with you that death penalty meant as a prevention of repeated criminal act but the question is did it lessen any criminal act in the society?