Capital Punishment Please vote and reply

[KonVicKt 0]

What are your views on capital punishment?I myself am greatly supportive of this. For many reasons1. people are afraid of it. Many Conservatives say that criminals are not afraid of capital punishment. If this is true tell me why they would be in custody. If they were not afraid of their deaths why did they submit to being arrested by gunpoint. if they were not scared they would have just fought back, but no they didnt they chose to surrender themselves, because they are afraid of the lethal force of the gun.2. They will never be able to kill another soul againI recall reading about the Richard Spect case (the guy who killed a bunch of nurses several decades ago). Every five or ten years, he came up for a parole hearing. The families of the victims, fearing that everyone else may have forgotten about the case and that he might be released to kill again, felt it their duty to attend the parole hearing and remind the board of his crime. They were subjected to a sort of mental torture each time. But they were able to keep him behind bars until he died, thus perhaps saving your life.3. "antis" main argument to capital punishment is "what purpose does it serve?"Each execution <i>could</i> save about 4 people if done correctly. How?About 3000 to 4000 people die each year in the us while waiting for organ transplants. No one seems to care much about them, i mean they die for lack of organce, while we burn and bury thousands of perfectly usable hearts, livers, kidneys, and epidermis'.Part of the problem is timing:people killed in accidents often have their perfectly good organs spoil before a suitable transplant recipient can be lined up.But with an execution planned months ahead the tissue matched recipients can be ready and wiating. a single small caliber bullet to the head will leave hte organs to save four people perfectly unharmed.Cruel you say? for those whose lives are saved? or for the families of the victim? just where is your sympathy?4. What if the wrong guy is convicted?Another strong argument by the antis. No one wants that, we all (should) know that "eye-witness" identification of strangers is not very reliable. not good enough to be certain.But now with finger prints and much better with dna matching, evidence is much more reliable than it ever was in the past the chances of convicting the innocent are lower now than ever, thanks to modern science.5. "antis" also use religion to back their case up, but they have just kickd their own butts by attempting thisAlmost all societies have dispensed wit the principle of "an eye for an eye" and considered it a step towards a more enlightened civilization. Christians cite "an eye for an ye" in their defense of the death penalty are usually unaware of hte strict criteria that god imposed before it could be used to take human life. The old testament also allowed the death penalty for crimes that today we consider less than misdemeanors. Clearly the old testament law is archaic. finally jesus himself argued against the principle of "an eye for an eye"6. Most societies dispensed with the "eye for an eye" principle of punishment centuries ago; indeed, it is considered one of the great advances of civilization and criminal justice. We do not punish rapists by raping them, or arsonists by burning their houses down, or sadists by torturing them. Instead they are imprisoned, isolated from society where they can no longer do harm.I should be honest about my bias. I opposed capital punishment for most of my life. For all the usual reasons.But then there was Ted Bundy. It was not just that he liked to kill young women (hey, no one is perfect!). And while everyone should be able to kill a few people, he overdid it.Please share your opinions:)But then when he bragged about how he got them: by hobbling around on crutches. He didn't kill just any young women, he targeted the ones who tried to help a cripple. It was then that I realized that I had this all wrong.Call it "non-verbal communication". Words just could not express my response to that. But 20,000 volts, yes that could.

[ruben1405241511 0]

Killing people for no use is wrong.1. Oh, lifetime imprisonment doesn't scare people? Don't go from your view, man! You are scared by death, but some people kill others, they don't even know, who never harmed anyone. Do you think these people think the same way as you do? If you think so, then I'm scared of you.I don't think that serial killers would make the rational decision to kill a few, just for the sake that they won't get fried in the end.2. Lifetime prisoners neither. Oh, they can escape, right? In what kind of country do you live, where this happens regularly?3. Your organ transplant (only use you mentioned) argument doesn't work in most cases. If they get fried or poisoned you can't use the organs. The way you mentioned (bullet in the head) is practiced in China as far as I know. They liked your idea, man they do that. I don't agree that we should learn from a country that is not even democratic.Also, the dying person can (current law) decide if he/she wants to share his organs. Ted Bundy and other sick thinking beings probably would not have agreed (by the way not only strange serial killers don't want to share their organs).I should add, that I have the slight shade of an idea, that serial killers don't live healthy.. might come with the lifestyle, you know, short but hard...And on the other hand, even if they have a foot in the grave, I do not believe that many people would like to have the body parts of a killer in them.4. What if they convict the wrong guy, because they need to shut him up?DNA and other unique identification cannot help you against corrupt cops/governers etc. Often a murderer cannot be convicted because of unique reasons. I would even say in most cases. We don't have the machine yet, that can tell you "Yes, that guy did it". The DNA on the victim's body might be there for other reasons.5. I think the Eye for Eye thingy is from the Old Testament, Jesus preached forgiving others. I don't care much about religion, but I respect life. Death penalty is old-fashioned. We can do better.6. Makes no sense at all to me.7. Why do you call it Capital Punishment? It's an euphemism for death, killing and crime. Are you afraid of the word death penalty?

[organicbmx 0]

here you are

and your still wrong for the reasons stated in the above thread. in fact i just had a convosation with my parents about the matter because just now in the uk a police woman was shot dead by robbers, no reason to give in to hate.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

actually, capital punishment drives up crime. I did a debate project on capital punishment Also, why is Capital Punishment have anything to do w/ science/tech?xboxrulz

[salempc 0]

I do believe capital punishment is a crude but necessary thing.sacrificing a life to save a lot more others is better than letting it free killing around.What good are we doing if we leave these killers alive and they go around wasting numerous lives. It is sad, but we really got to let them go, as when we do when a grandparent is about to die, in the case of christianity, they will be judged on their lives and receive what they deserve for eternity. Anyone agree?

[Jeigh1405241495 0]

I disagree with so many aspects of the legal systems in Canada/America (no I'm not saying they are the same, I just disagree with dif things about both). I think capital punishment should be in place, but only for heavily regulated pre-determined levels of crime. But frankly the way the systems are set up now I really think its best just to keep it out of the system, I mean I've heard of people going away longer for low end drug charges then for rape... to me thats just rediculous so who knows....not I thats for sure...

[mitchellmckain 0]

I voted strongly in support capital pushiment. But lets get away from the euphemism and call it what it is. I believe that the government should be able to kill people for what it considers adequate reasons. It is a final solution to people, who have proven that it is not worth the effort or the risk of rehabilitation. For I think the purpose of prison should be rehabilitation, therefore, I do not in general believe that life imprisonment makes much sense. There could be exceptions I suppose in cases where the expense of life imprisonment could be justified. However I do not believe in the death penalty for the sake of justice. I do not believe in "an eye for an eye" or a life for a life. I think that the proper justification for the death penalty is public menace. By public menace I mean behavior that consists of preying upon strangers or endangering the public. Even when the objective may be only be rape or robbery, this kind of behavior is a general threat to the well being of the public.I must say that I have one strong reservation about giving the governement the power to kill people for what it considers adequate reasons. This can only be given to the government if we have reason to trust it. In other words it relies on the adequate protections of rights that have been an American tradition. The "Patriot Act" has seriously eroded both the protection of those rights and the trust we can place in the goverment. So I am not sure that this time in particular is the right time to advocate capitol punishment in the United States.

[Jguy101 0]

I slightly support it. I don't think it should be used all the time, and I think someone should have to be proved 100% guilty to get it. But I still think it should be there.

[Grafitti 0]

I voted strongly in favor of it. that would be ideal, i think. however the other side of the coin is that you really can't tell in today's world, whether someone is actually guilty or just been framed. point in case, to give an example: Hurricane Carter. he was framed, though innocent, and then how would he have gotten cleared if he had been executed? On the other hand, actual criminals who've murdered someone, let's say premeditated, not just any murder, deserve it. Why should they be sentenced to life in prison, and the government shells out tens of thousands of dollars to pay for it. Maybe if there was like, a "second offense" death penalty, where you got a jail sentence the first time around, and if you did it again, then you got the death penalty. that would be fair, and you wouldn't be killing those who are innocent. Unless someone really hates the guy, and frames him a second time around. But there's no way it can be perfectly fair. We are mortals, after all.

[Shepcon 0]

I slightly oppose. In Countries that support capital punishment, crime rates tend to be higher then average. I don't feel that it would solve any problems. Unless someone truly deserves it, and is guilty beyond any possible doubt. And by truly deserves it, I mean some sort of serial killer or the likes. I'd say that overall, the jail system that is around right now (in Canada at least) is fairly effective. I occasionally hear about someone thats a repeat offender after being "remediated", but 99% of the time people that are released from jail won't commit another crime.

[tadroptopgirl 0]

An eye for an eye. If someone killed my family i would want that person killed.

[Vicious_AD 0]

No matter what the crime, no human has the right to kill another. Maybe they do deserve to dow for that they did, but as humans, no one has the right to enforce that. I'm an agnostic, so I don't really have much of a religious standpoint on it, but more of a moral standpoint. I think that no matter how many people voted on it and no matter how many laws and huge documents where stacked upon it, no-human-has-the-right-to-kill-another. What makes the executioner any better than the murder him/herself? The answer is simple: Absolutely nothing. Murder is still murder. What is even more sickening than the number of people that voted "strongly yes" (you have your right to an opinion, and I have my right to be disappointed with it) is the fact that that in New Orleans child molestation is a capital offense. That's just completely ludicrous. A few extra years of innocence (although yes, it scars them forever, they are still alive and that's what matters) is not worth an entire human soul. That's casting your fellow man into the unknown simply for something so little as a mere social and moral taboo. I'm not in any way advocating child molestation, but I do not think it's grounds for murder. If, on the other hand, they also killed the child afterwards, then they then deserve to be brought to justice (my definition of justice is equality, a word which is long since lost in the minds of humans) but not by the hands of another human. This doesn't mean put them into a pit of lions or something, because it'd still be murder, but forcing a helpless animal to help. "yes they deserve to die, and I hope they burn in hell!" -Samuel L. Jackson

[MrCheap 0]

I am strongly for capital punishment. I think that if you took a life or destroyed someones life in some way (crippling from them, scamming them out of a large amount of money, etc.), you should die for it.I also believe that if every state has it, it will reduce the number of murders because it's scary, knowing that you could die for committing a crime.

[fa1512 0]

I just responded to some of the things you said. I think capital punishment is a poor tool for preventing crime. I think education and incentives are much more important factors that capital punishment barely addresses. you need to think about how to keep people from preventing crimes which would, in your opinion, merit capital punishment1. people are afraid of it. Many Conservatives say that criminals are not afraid of capital punishment. Punishment can serve two purposes in my opinion. Retribution or Prevention. If the idea of capital punishment scaring criminals from committing crimes is an adequate preventive method for you I will have to say that you are preventing the crime after it occurs. Perhaps you will prevent further crime but the first crime was the problem. You won't catch a criminal the first time so you need to work for preventive methods that will prevent crime before it occurs not after a pattern or tendency has been established which entails countless victims. Capital punishment is a weak tool for prevention since it can only protect people after criminals have been exposed. 2. They will never be able to kill another soul againIf they already killed a soul then they have already hurt a great deal of people. If you kill the criminal then you lose all that you invested in him or her and you waste a life. If instead you employ the criminal in some effort which is neither profitable nor desireable, for example use in public works that requiere heavy physical labor.You make them build schools and roads but you do not contract their labor out to private companies. Doing so will provide incentives to incarcerate people regardless of their crime or culpability. It is important to maintain a public penetentiary system,3. "antis" main argument to capital punishment is "what purpose does it serve?"4. What if the wrong guy is convicted?Assuming that we are talking over all results then perhaps we can ignore the marginal errors that will occur given a satisfactory judicial system. This really depends on the country one lives in and on ones opinions of his or her judicial system. I live in Perú and I do not think that judges are very just.5. "antis" also use religion to back their case up, but they have just kickd their own butts by attempting thisReligion is important on a personal level but due to the size and diversity of most modern societies it can only play a role on an individual level and can not dictate what is right or wrong for the majority.

[Vicious_AD 0]

I am strongly for capital punishment. I think that if you took a life or destroyed someones life in some way (crippling from them, scamming them out of a large amount of money, etc.), you should die for it.

 

I also believe that if every state has it, it will reduce the number of murders because it's scary, knowing that you could die for committing a crime.

1064337007[/snapback]

Why try to prevent the citizens from murdering eachother if the government murders them instead? The part about the money scamming was especially unthoughtful because how is any amount of money worth life? and if money is equal to life, then couldn't we just demand a fine from the murderers instead? That wouldn't be fair though, would it? Neither would killing them for anything other than murder. Even supposing murder justifies murder, like an eye for an eye, then now there are two deaths where there are one. It's really not like they'll have time to think about how they screwed up if they are dead. It's almost like giving them an easy way out if you think about it, supposing there is something other than hell. Supposing there is hell, do you really think that someone should go to a sleepless eternity of pain and torture that they can't get out of, just for stealing money that the victim can just get back? Mortality isn't as simple and expendable as you may be thinking. Before you condemn someone to the ultimate penalty, think first of how any why they got the way they did. Think that you are not only killing (however many years old they are) of thought and memories, but also think of them when they where a child. Have you ever known any child to come out of the womb and immediately start slashing people away? Everyone was originally innocent, and it's only due to a mental disease that prevents them from understanding the severity of what they're doing, a tough life of mental and physical abuse, or things like that. Think of any 3 year old you know of, with their silly little thoughts about santa claus, their misunderstanding of words, how gullible they are about anything you tell them, their love for small furry things, how excited they are just to go to a big mechanical amusement park like disneyland, and then, after analyzing that little kid, then kill him. Take his future, his chances at repenting for bad things, his memories, the love he'll share, everything. Throw it away like it's absolutely nothing. Can you do that for some money? If you can, then I don't really think that you have any place to condemn someone, because you too are a murderer at heart, and an evil person if there is one. Every adult was a baby once, and they all became how they are due to their biology and surroundings. It's called the "nature nurture effect". No kid grows up planning to hurt someone else. If they do then they just don't understand the severity of what they're thinking.