Should capital punishment be legal?
I'm not necessarily against the idea of killing somebody for their crimes if enough proof can be provided, but the system in its current instance is a HUGE sink of tax money in the US for example. And such a system is just a waste, so I'd be for abolishing that if anything.
"every now and again you come across a game that has so little emotional connection to who you are that you end up standing there, gazing at the screen and saying "I'm just pressing buttons and my life has no meaning,"" - Colin Campbell
IShouldGetALife
<Member>
<Member>
@Kinen the insane is a whole different matter altogether I'm talking murderers that have full control of their minds, also the ones that feel it is justified and are blinded by anger/grief they can't be treated as someone who did it in cold blood did, if they had some type of mental issue associated with the killing then max security psych ward with a padded cell and no visitors ever.
If I have helped in anyway at all a +rep will be appreciated lots
Thanks to LaCorpse, Hogopogo and JhoiJhoi for the amazing sigs
I'm not really going to talk about practicalities, since that's not completely my area of expertise, and I always believe it to generally be a get-out-of-jail-free clause so I'm just going to focus on the principles of the death penalty.
To put it simply, even though they are criminals, they are still human people. Just because they kill someone, it does not mean you can arbitrarily write them off as 'scum'. Nor does it necessitate that they suddenly lose their right to life just because they deprived it of someone else. There is no actual justification for this assumption. Why are they not considered human? Humans have been taking lives for as long as we have existed, yet for some reason we seem to have developed some sort of sensibility which allows us to strip a person of their humanity.
The question 'whereon do they get the right to condemn these killers to the death penalty and deprive these killers of the right to life?' can be asked as far as the state, to the government of the country, in turn to the people of the country who elected their government... until we find that there is no such a right.
Yes, they create sadness for others. Yes, they inflict pain upon the undeserving. But to reduce it to 'a life for a life' is arbitrary at best, not an actual justification.
Not to mention a killer's psyche can be a rather complex thing...
To bring up a case example, the case of Loeb and Leopold, two teenage boys who went about the perfect crime to kidnap and murder a 14-year old boy. First-degree murder by all means and easily submitted to the death penalty. They got off only a prison sentence, though. I'll let you look up the details yourselves, but suffice it to say, they are a good case to examine in the course of a discussion over the death penalty.
To put it simply, even though they are criminals, they are still human people. Just because they kill someone, it does not mean you can arbitrarily write them off as 'scum'. Nor does it necessitate that they suddenly lose their right to life just because they deprived it of someone else. There is no actual justification for this assumption. Why are they not considered human? Humans have been taking lives for as long as we have existed, yet for some reason we seem to have developed some sort of sensibility which allows us to strip a person of their humanity.
The question 'whereon do they get the right to condemn these killers to the death penalty and deprive these killers of the right to life?' can be asked as far as the state, to the government of the country, in turn to the people of the country who elected their government... until we find that there is no such a right.
Yes, they create sadness for others. Yes, they inflict pain upon the undeserving. But to reduce it to 'a life for a life' is arbitrary at best, not an actual justification.
Not to mention a killer's psyche can be a rather complex thing...
To bring up a case example, the case of Loeb and Leopold, two teenage boys who went about the perfect crime to kidnap and murder a 14-year old boy. First-degree murder by all means and easily submitted to the death penalty. They got off only a prison sentence, though. I'll let you look up the details yourselves, but suffice it to say, they are a good case to examine in the course of a discussion over the death penalty.
Mooninites wrote:
DuffTime wrote:
ok ok plz carry me omg
i was only waiting for you to ask
Temzilla wrote:
Too hot to be icecream.
Luther3000 wrote:
He looks like a hair gel advert on legs
Toshabi wrote:
Icecreamy, with hair as slick and smooth as the ocean waves of Cocobana
IShouldGetALife wrote:
@Kinen the insane is a whole different matter altogether I'm talking murderers that have full control of their minds, also the ones that feel it is justified and are blinded by anger/grief they can't be treated as someone who did it in cold blood did, if they had some type of mental issue associated with the killing then max security psych ward with a padded cell and no visitors ever.
I'll still put them in prison for life. If someone is planning to kill someone they probably know the consequences and if you add the death penalty they will still commit murder.
A killer behind bars can do no harm to me, they have 0 chance of breaking out in a maximum security prison unless a zombie apocalypse happens.
i need to delete this account
SkidmarkD wrote:
Seriously?
No one?
Our Auzzie friends can tell you how that one worked out....
For me, it's pretty simple.
You take a human life, you forfeit the right to your own.
We could also throw them on the moon, but that is kind of a death sentence.
And that would also be kind of expensive :P
But what if, we put them deep underground. We only have to pay once to dig a hole, and then we just make it impossible to escape.
Like in the Dark knight rises :D
Change is gooooood
Picture by: Thalia Kael
Want to advertise your guide, but don't know where? Click here for an opportunity of a lifetime!
SkidmarkD wrote:
Well tbh, things like Death Race and the Hunger Games and Gamer (think is was that one) wouldn't be such a bad idea.
Let the problem solve itself and it'll entertain us.
I'd suggest old school gladiators, but animal rights activists would prolly complain about using lions and tigers and bears and sharks and such.
Daddy: "Come on kids, the Hunger Games are starting!"
Son: "Is that the programm where everyone kills eachother?"
Daddy: "Yes it is my son"
Son: "COOL! I wanna join the Hunger games when I grow up!"
Mommy: "Oh, Billy"
*Happy family laughter*
Change is gooooood
Picture by: Hogopogo
Want to advertise your guide, but don't know where? Click here for an opportunity of a lifetime!
^ That would be scary
I don't think there's any use in killing someone. They might come in handy sometimes. I do think some prisons are more like a vacation trip than a prison-like prison. No more internet and tv, just staring to the wall seems more than enough to me. Might drive them mad though, not that anyone would notice the difference.
I don't think there's any use in killing someone. They might come in handy sometimes. I do think some prisons are more like a vacation trip than a prison-like prison. No more internet and tv, just staring to the wall seems more than enough to me. Might drive them mad though, not that anyone would notice the difference.
********'s a pretty good fertilizer
You need to log in before commenting.
and if thats the case why not have 4 dummy levers and 5 people all pulling the levers at the same time for whatever machine theyre using for the punishment? that way it cant be pinned on one person for the electric chair and lethal injection methods
EDIT: as much as i enjoy talking about this topic im going to bed and ill continue tomorrow about stuff