I don't think death is a punishment severe enough, but also don't condone with physical torture such as cutting arms and ****. I think that, above all, forcing the criminal into repenteance for the rest of their lives through forced work or whatever community service they can get done is punishment enough; they hardly get many more joys left and they're being useful for the society after taking down someone who would potentially be less of a piece of garbage than they are.
Thank you Tsuki for the sig!
From a practical point of view I'd state that the death penalty is absolutely fantastic, and should, theoretically save tons of hard-earned dollars so we can buy ourselves a lot of Cornettos. However, theory is a treacherous thing and as good ol' Uncle Sam can tell you, killing people isn't cheap. For further study, ask the people in Vietnam and Iraq.
That being said, I still won't change my original stance on it: I do support it, assuming it's necessary. The criminal justice system is there for one reason, and one reason only, and it's not to exact revenge on those who break our, sometimes seemingly arbitrary, rules. It is, instead, to re-educate individuals so they won't exactly go down the same path. In reality, this isn't that easy and in most countries, like that one that elected an orange as its supreme leader, it's mostly done by shoving people in a 2×2×2 box—that's metric for you, not that ******ed system based on ridiculous things—because we will think that'll teach 'em a lesson rather than simply traumatising them for life, because that's what their military is for.
That being said, if you've got your hands on an individual of whom you are convinced cannot be brought back into society under any normal circumstances, then what's the bloody point on keeping them alive or trying to re-educate them? It'd be like trying to teach League of Legends players that teamwork is an existing thing. Or teaching Americans that their country really isn't as spiffy as they think.
I suppose there's a whole ethics side of it, but I don't think most people really care if we'd execute individuals like Joseph Fritzl, no matter how Saturday Morning cartoon villain their backstory may very well be. So yes, provided you've got a solid criminal justice system that aims to re-educate perpetrators, does not waste its time on nonsense, and keeps making the “punishments” fit the crimes, then I'd say the death penalty is just fine for that microscopic amount of people who really cannot ever function within five hundred miles of another human being.
In conclusion, if people can stop seeing the criminal justice system as a legal way to take revenge on wrongdoers, then that'd be really ****ing sweet, because then we'd also realise that the death penalty isn't really a punishment at all, but rather a solution for individuals which cannot exist without trying to destabilise our society. Another proposed solution is that we let them fight to the death, Roman style!
That being said, I still won't change my original stance on it: I do support it, assuming it's necessary. The criminal justice system is there for one reason, and one reason only, and it's not to exact revenge on those who break our, sometimes seemingly arbitrary, rules. It is, instead, to re-educate individuals so they won't exactly go down the same path. In reality, this isn't that easy and in most countries, like that one that elected an orange as its supreme leader, it's mostly done by shoving people in a 2×2×2 box—that's metric for you, not that ******ed system based on ridiculous things—because we will think that'll teach 'em a lesson rather than simply traumatising them for life, because that's what their military is for.
That being said, if you've got your hands on an individual of whom you are convinced cannot be brought back into society under any normal circumstances, then what's the bloody point on keeping them alive or trying to re-educate them? It'd be like trying to teach League of Legends players that teamwork is an existing thing. Or teaching Americans that their country really isn't as spiffy as they think.
I suppose there's a whole ethics side of it, but I don't think most people really care if we'd execute individuals like Joseph Fritzl, no matter how Saturday Morning cartoon villain their backstory may very well be. So yes, provided you've got a solid criminal justice system that aims to re-educate perpetrators, does not waste its time on nonsense, and keeps making the “punishments” fit the crimes, then I'd say the death penalty is just fine for that microscopic amount of people who really cannot ever function within five hundred miles of another human being.
In conclusion, if people can stop seeing the criminal justice system as a legal way to take revenge on wrongdoers, then that'd be really ****ing sweet, because then we'd also realise that the death penalty isn't really a punishment at all, but rather a solution for individuals which cannot exist without trying to destabilise our society. Another proposed solution is that we let them fight to the death, Roman style!
GrandmasterD wrote:
In conclusion, if people can stop seeing the criminal justice system as a legal way to take revenge on wrongdoers, then that'd be really ****ing sweet, because then we'd also realise that the death penalty isn't really a punishment at all, but rather a solution for individuals which cannot exist without trying to destabilise our society.
I myself believe in giving people chances and helping them out getting there. I believe they apply a system like this in Norway where they make the living conditions in prison much more comfortable and where they help them get back on track with their lives. That will much more likely solve criminal behaviour from ex-convicts than anything else.
That applies to most criminals, but I am aware that there are some people where it is known that they are guilty of murder, where they have proven they are not going to recover and that there is a high chance they will do it again. In those cases I would understand considering death penalty as an option.
Change is gooooood
Picture by: Janitsudude
Want to advertise your guide, but don't know where? Click here for an opportunity of a lifetime!
DreamingInRed wrote:
Since there are too many cases where you can't be 100% sure about the conviction I can't get behind a punishment as irreversible as death
Irreversible? Yes.
FOR NOW!
Thank you Tsuki for the sig!
DreamingInRed wrote:
Since there are too many cases where you can't be 100% sure about the conviction I can't get behind a punishment as irreversible as death
While I do agree with GMD on punishment as revenge being stupidly unproductive and the death penalty having quite a bunch of upsides, in the end, like with many other decisions, we have to draw an imaginary line somewhere. When would you say a person "cannot be brought back" to being a "good citizen"? It's not easy to decide, and deciding wrong could mean killing an innocent or a potential good person. I guess one could go with the most conservative option, but then again, most if not all conservative decisions eventually end up in not killing someone because you can't be sure of a person's potential.
Wouldn't it also be more humane to allow them to face their own life even if their way of being is harmful to others? (of course doing everything possible to avoid that harm) It's a complicated matter, and I'll probably stand against it unless some reasonable system for it is the one trying to be applied (i.e. logical and evidence-based instead of fueled by anger and revenge).
You need to log in before commenting.
<Member>