|
Post by fcktht on May 2, 2010 19:59:14 GMT -5
i dont think the courts are absolutely right, humans are never always right. humans are all flawed. but here's the thing, it is completely irrelevant whether or not the murderer thought what he was doing was right, a suicide bomber thinks what he or she is doing is right, and is gods will, that does not make it right. the people elect the government, the government makes the laws. if the people don't like those laws, they install politicians who will change those laws. there are states that have done away with the death penalty altogether. there are states that rarely ever use it. then there are states like texas which has the most active execution chamber in the country. each state, or even the entire country as a whole has a right to make the death penalty what they want it to be, they have the right to do away with it, or enact it. if the people are against the death penalty, why is it still active in many many states?
and by the way, the jury does not give the sentence of death, the jury gives the verdict. the sentence is handed down by a judge.
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
Post by FranticProdigy on May 2, 2010 20:00:06 GMT -5
I recommend watching "Prison Break" for all your murderers out there who support the death penalty it should teach you morality.
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on May 2, 2010 20:08:37 GMT -5
i dont think the courts are absolutely right, humans are never always right. humans are all flawed. but here's the thing, it is completely irrelevant whether or not the murderer thought what he was doing was right, a suicide bomber thinks what he or she is doing is right, and is gods will, that does not make it right. the people elect the government, the government makes the laws. if the people don't like those laws, they install politicians who will change those laws. there are states that have done away with the death penalty altogether. there are states that rarely ever use it. then there are states like texas which has the most active execution chamber in the country. each state, or even the entire country as a whole has a right to make the death penalty what they want it to be, they have the right to do away with it, or enact it. if the people are against the death penalty, why is it still active in many many states? and by the way, the jury does not give the sentence of death, the jury gives the verdict. the sentence is handed down by a judge. Neither is the judge elected by the people. The court and the government are different. So you are saying the judge has the right to kill if the people agree that the death penalty is moral? If the population agrees with the death penalty, why can't people kill legally then?
|
|
|
Post by fcktht on May 2, 2010 20:18:59 GMT -5
well, suppose it were up to you, how would you allow citizens to kill legally?
|
|
rcn927
Meteor
Proud to be a Nerd
Posts: 57
|
Post by rcn927 on May 2, 2010 21:04:12 GMT -5
You've got a good idea, but:
Type 3=Capital Punishment. Why pay to keep them alive if in prison for life? Even with this, doing this process for all prisoners is damn expensive.
|
|
TheIslander
Planet
From a Land Surrounded by Sea.
Posts: 403
|
Post by TheIslander on May 2, 2010 21:23:11 GMT -5
well, suppose it were up to you, how would you allow citizens to kill legally? I wouldn't. I wouldn't allow the state to do so either. and if there is to be an alternative to prison, it would be community/military service.
|
|
|
Post by nickgreyden on May 2, 2010 23:38:05 GMT -5
Fallacy: In a civilized society, no one murders.
lessen the number of appeals
Punishment is not revenge, punishment is force applied to a subject to elicit a prescribed response. In this case, an unwillingness to break the law.
Mostly correct. Those that do it for gain: should be aptly punished. Those that do it because of mental instability: Universal Psychological care. Those that do it because they see themselves as above the law: should be aptly punished. Those who are forced by circumstances to commit crimes: Should be aptly punished. The reason for the last is that everything you mentioned as a "condition" that they commited the crime and then the crime itself was a choice made by a reasoning indivdual that should know the results of such a decision. If the result is "Oh we are going to help you" instead of "Tie him up, and ten lashes in the public square" I think you will have a lot more crime.
@the Doctor ever heard the phrase "An eye for an eye and the world goes blind"?
Citation?
He did not say you could, he said "if" you could
Making the assumtion that you of course meant live instead of love. What gives you the right to say one should live when others die? What gives you the right to say that a woman can or cannot have an abortion? What gives you the right to say that you can't allow insider trading? What gives you the right to say spouses shouldn't cheat on their mates? What gives you the right to speak as a woman? What gives you the right to say I can't take my neighbors things? What gives you the right to say how fast I should drive, how much I eat, how many kids I have, and if I should buy car and health insurance? What gives you the right?
..... the fact that they are "innocent"
|
|
|
Post by nickgreyden on May 3, 2010 2:29:09 GMT -5
I dont believe in punishment, because punishment is revenge, and revenge leads to nothing. Weeell, it leads to more revenge, which in itself counteracts the reason for punishment... Forgot to add this in. So you want to fix someone. If they don't wished to be "fixed" then you are doing so against their will which is a form of punishment. We cannot "use the rod" on them for that is punishment. We cannot incarcerate them because that is punishment. Should we just then not ask them to do it again as we wave goodbye? This is absolute foolishness and nothing but wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by nickgreyden on May 3, 2010 14:44:51 GMT -5
Also depends on if you call punishment "wrong". After all, I believe the entire thread could be summed up into "Which punishments are wrong"
|
|
|
Post by jcunningham23 on May 3, 2010 23:40:41 GMT -5
fcktht wrote... ( i cannot figure out how to quote with the author apart of it ) Very rarely does a judge not give a death penalty sentence if the jury has recommended it. Capital punishment has two reasons; Deterrence and retribution. Since it has been proven that deterrence does not work and retribution, in my opinion, is not morally acceptable, the death penalty should be stomped out.
|
|
|
Post by nickgreyden on May 4, 2010 0:30:38 GMT -5
Very rarely does a judge not give a death penalty sentence if the jury has recommended it. Capital punishment has two reasons; Deterrence and retribution. Since it has been proven that deterrence does not work and retribution, in my opinion, is not morally acceptable, the death penalty should be stomped out. Citation please on not giving the death penalty and deterrence not working. IMO death penalty is not only morally acceptable, but is vital and therefore should be expanded upon.
|
|
|
Post by nickgreyden on May 4, 2010 0:38:08 GMT -5
From a third party stating his opinion on the matter:
|
|
|
Post by nickgreyden on May 4, 2010 0:47:27 GMT -5
oh and I forgot on both of my own previous posts to add in this jewel
I lol'd Then I cried for the sad shape the world has entered. :-(
|
|
|
Post by jcunningham23 on May 4, 2010 18:46:12 GMT -5
In almost all cases, a judge will determine your sentence, not a jury. One of the few situations where a jury will determine your sentence is in death penalty cases. A judge cannot order the death penalty unless a jury recommends death instead of life in prison.Copy and pasted from... www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/criminal-sentencing.htmlStudies have been done about the deterrence effect of the death penalty and most have shown that the crime rates are higher in states that use the death penalty the most and lower in states that do not use the death penalty. I am not in favor of the death penalty, but it seems to me that the only way to make deterrence work is to make the executions more public. Gruesome thought, I know, but executions barely make the news anymore (at least not in Cleveland).
|
|
|
Post by nickgreyden on May 5, 2010 1:09:29 GMT -5
would like to see the same chart with per capita (did I spell that correctly?) with each year in it. Also would like to see same graph for those states that used to have death penalty now don't. As of right now you show a corolation (too late to worry about spelling) but that is far from proof e.g. pirates and global warming, though I will give a bit and find it interesting albeit offset by population rate.
Also would like to see the education graphs as well as the unemployment graphs for the years in question. There would be many areas to look as well as how to look at them to determine if X does not produce result Y.
Thank you for the citation on the death penalty, however it does not answer the question. Do you have the number of times in the past say 10 years that a judges has refused and accepted death penalty suggestions. After all, we now know that a judge can't sentence without a suggestion so that would be easy information to find, however we also don't know how many times it has been denied. Also taking out of the stats would be the "no cap punishment" states complicating finding the results also.
|
|
|
Post by stephen5000 on May 5, 2010 14:06:42 GMT -5
I'm interested in the philosophy behind using punishment as a deterrent (wrt crime).
Personally, simply having a law is strong reason for me to do (or not do) certain actions. I don't need the added threat of punishment. (maybe I'm just more OCD than most people) That's just ruling by fear, which I strongly disagree with.
If a person willingly violates the law, doesn't that mean that they disagree with the nature of the law in question. And isn't that the bigger issue we should be dealing with?
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on May 26, 2010 14:35:18 GMT -5
I think your view of the prison system is a step in the right direction but I would rather see a world without the need for prisons. Since we create laws to solve problems we have no other solution for I think we should move forward past prisons and create an environment where no one has the need to commit a crime. Or at least reduce the number substantially. And instead of prisons - which rely on fear, and simple removal from society - we should have rehabilitative institutions.
This is very idealistic I realize, so maybe this is a more attainable solution:
I like your 3 levels of prison, however, I would change it from 3 prison types to 2. The Type 1 should not be considered a prison by any legal/social means, but rather a rehabilitative institution and should act as such. (Your explanation makes it sound like one, except you just give the title 'prison' which to me sends the wrong message.)
And I do not agree with this statement:
"LIFE IN PRISON SHOULD BE WORSE THAN LIFE OUTSIDE OF PRISON. ... This is especially for the TYPE 1 prison. If you show them it's worse on the inside, they won't be as quick to commit crimes again."
Acting on fear does not rehabilitate a human. Any person that commits a crime needs to see the better side of life, not be scared of the worse.
Oh and on the point of death penalty I believe the state should not have the power to take anyone's life especially if they've only committed 1 murder. The state must attempt the rehabilitation of a person, instead of jumping to the death sentence. However if it seems likely this person is so desensitized to human life (in the case of a serial killer), maybe the death penalty is the right call...
Cam
|
|
|
Post by qooqǝɯɐƃ on May 26, 2010 14:48:30 GMT -5
If a person willingly violates the law, doesn't that mean that they disagree with the nature of the law in question. And isn't that the bigger issue we should be dealing with? ...brilliant. I think someone hit the nail on the head. =]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2010 12:19:41 GMT -5
And I do not agree with this statement: "LIFE IN PRISON SHOULD BE WORSE THAN LIFE OUTSIDE OF PRISON. ... This is especially for the TYPE 1 prison. If you show them it's worse on the inside, they won't be as quick to commit crimes again." Acting on fear does not rehabilitate a human. Any person that commits a crime needs to see the better side of life, not be scared of the worse. Cam I think you forgot to add the lines that come after that I also said that it should be worse than outside prison, but a certain level of luxury should be allowed to create an environment where the convicts can rehabilitate sorry for bumping this topic, I'm just sad that while I was active no one replied and while I was gone everyone did XD
|
|
earth
Moon
the awesome
Posts: 245
|
Post by earth on Jun 3, 2010 12:48:51 GMT -5
jeese i made a really good essay on this once. too lazy to put it on here. basically i disagree with this. a guy kills a guy and thats bad so you punish him by killing him. its like.. two wrongs dont make a right. and it can be used disproportionately against minorities. also they dont learn nothing after theyre dead. life in prison can help them repent and turn into better people. idk.
edit: oh and its more expensive to kill than to keep in prison for life.. i believe.
|
|