• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drunk Driver Made to Wear Sign Saying He Killed a Man

Ikari said:
Well the power of hindsight makes everything clearer. I was talking, of course, about the generalized use of the death penalty and the negative effects using such a system can have.
Click to expand...

Even the power of hindsight does not bring back the dead. When you take a life by murder your life becomes forfeit in my opinion. Far too often when a crime has been committed all eyes turn to the murderer and what is fair for him. More people need to think about what was fair to the life that was lost. And to the lives of those affected by the murder this person committed. To me it is simply a matter of accountability.
 
Ikari said:
Well the power of hindsight makes everything clearer. I was talking, of course, about the generalized use of the death penalty and the negative effects using such a system can have.
Click to expand...

I see no negative effects of putting to death rapists, sexual predators, murderers, and other scum of the earth that can NOT be rehabilitated. That they can not harm another innocent person seems to be a positive effect.
 
muciti said:
Even the power of hindsight does not bring back the dead. When you take a life by murder your life becomes forfeit in my opinion. Far too often when a crime has been committed all eyes turn to the murderer and what is fair for him. More people need to think about what was fair to the life that was lost. And to the lives of those affected by the murder this person committed. To me it is simply a matter of accountability.
Click to expand...

Well said. Are you sure you are 'very liberal'?
 
muciti said:
Even the power of hindsight does not bring back the dead. When you take a life by murder your life becomes forfeit in my opinion. Far too often when a crime has been committed all eyes turn to the murderer and what is fair for him. More people need to think about what was fair to the life that was lost. And to the lives of those affected by the murder this person committed. To me it is simply a matter of accountability.
Click to expand...

The life lost is lost now. Gone for good, that is the function of our all too mortal selves. It’s not that I don’t understand your argument nor your opinion; but rather I’m taking a base. We do need to consider what will be proper punishment for criminals in our society and what can have positive effect on the aggregate system. I don’t see anyone arguing against accountability; I believe everyone has stated that they would put this guy in jail longer than the 3 months he got (though none of us quite have all the data on why it’s 3 months). But we have to be careful for what we call for and be wary of negative effects it can have. The death penalty falls into this category. It’s easy for any of us to point to any given specific situation and say “this guy should die!”. But cases are not always that clear cut and there are many grey areas. If you push for the death penalty, you need to do so understanding that you are pushing for the deaths of innocent people through the use of government force. That’s just a reality of the system and a reflection on our lack of perfect knowledge.

In that light, I push for an amount of intellectualism to be injected into the debate and understanding of non-linear mechanics of these systems. Through reason and intelligence, we can drive the system to a better place and are better able to weigh out the pros and cons of any given system including aggregate effects.

I don’t make these charges haphazardly. I was a strong proponent for the death penalty for some time. But I have also thought a lot about what I want government to do, what it can do well, and the pitfalls of these systems. This is the opinion I have driven to under those constraints and why I propose an end to the death penalty (though this is getting a bit off topic). In general, I wish to push for proper and constrained punishment such that punishment may fit the crime.
 
Arbo said:
I see no negative effects of putting to death rapists, sexual predators, murderers, and other scum of the earth that can NOT be rehabilitated. That they can not harm another innocent person seems to be a positive effect.
Click to expand...

There is no aggregate gain for society however (not to mention the cost). And the generalized use of the death penalty will mean that innocent people will be caught up in it. The death penalty innately consumes innocent life. Calling for more aggressive usage of the death penalty will only exacerbate that.
 
Ikari said:
The life lost is lost now. Gone for good, that is the function of our all too mortal selves. It’s not that I don’t understand your argument nor your opinion; but rather I’m taking a base. We do need to consider what will be proper punishment for criminals in our society and what can have positive effect on the aggregate system. I don’t see anyone arguing against accountability; I believe everyone has stated that they would put this guy in jail longer than the 3 months he got (though none of us quite have all the data on why it’s 3 months). But we have to be careful for what we call for and be wary of negative effects it can have. The death penalty falls into this category. It’s easy for any of us to point to any given specific situation and say “this guy should die!”. But cases are not always that clear cut and there are many grey areas. If you push for the death penalty, you need to do so understanding that you are pushing for the deaths of innocent people through the use of government force. That’s just a reality of the system and a reflection on our lack of perfect knowledge.

In that light, I push for an amount of intellectualism to be injected into the debate and understanding of non-linear mechanics of these systems. Through reason and intelligence, we can drive the system to a better place and are better able to weigh out the pros and cons of any given system including aggregate effects.

I don’t make these charges haphazardly. I was a strong proponent for the death penalty for some time. But I have also thought a lot about what I want government to do, what it can do well, and the pitfalls of these systems. This is the opinion I have driven to under those constraints and why I propose an end to the death penalty (though this is getting a bit off topic). In general, I wish to push for proper and constrained punishment such that punishment may fit the crime.
Click to expand...

No system punishment will ever satisfy everyone. No system will ever be perfect. How do you determine the punishment that fits a crime? your idea of what is fitting does not align with mine. So what would be a fair way to determine it?
 
muciti said:
No system punishment will ever satisfy everyone. No system will ever be perfect. How do you determine the punishment that fits a crime? your idea of what is fitting does not align with mine. So what would be a fair way to determine it?
Click to expand...

Indeed, no system is perfect. But I do think we can accomplish everything we do now to the same levels of safety without the death penalty, and that's one reason why I do not support it. Your question is one of the most fundamental questions of sophisticated society. What is justice, how can we best carry it out, how do we minimize the negative consequences while maximizing the positives? There is a huge philosophical argument on this. Me? I take the road that government is restricted in how it may act against our rights and liberties. If we choose a side to err on, I err on the side of the individual. It's up to the government to make the case, the individual is innocent until proven guilty. In this system, guilty people are more apt to go free in order to ensure that as few innocent people get sent to prison as possible. That's where I stand.

For the death penalty, I don't think it to be necessary any longer. It provides no aggregated security, it costs a lot of money, it consumes innocent life. It's all downside and no upside.
 
Ikari said:
Indeed, no system is perfect. But I do think we can accomplish everything we do now to the same levels of safety without the death penalty, and that's one reason why I do not support it. Your question is one of the most fundamental questions of sophisticated society. What is justice, how can we best carry it out, how do we minimize the negative consequences while maximizing the positives? There is a huge philosophical argument on this. Me? I take the road that government is restricted in how it may act against our rights and liberties. If we choose a side to err on, I err on the side of the individual. It's up to the government to make the case, the individual is innocent until proven guilty. In this system, guilty people are more apt to go free in order to ensure that as few innocent people get sent to prison as possible. That's where I stand.

For the death penalty, I don't think it to be necessary any longer. It provides no aggregated security, it costs a lot of money, it consumes innocent life. It's all downside and no upside.
Click to expand...

The death penalty, if exercised more expediently and more frequently (in murder cases) would save a ton of money. The consumption of innocent life is minimal. Very few things in this world result in no loss of innocent life. As for security, no person who has ever been executed has ever committed another crime that I am aware of.

Our criminal justice system is not just about rehabilitation. It is about punishment. It is about justice. Many people say that the death penatly does not discourage crime. I believe that the reason it fails to deter is because you know you will live 20+ years in comfort at the expense of tax payers. No cares about going to prison because in prison you are coddled by the system. Prison needs to be much more of a place of discomfort. I do not mind spending money to rehabilitate some criminals. Criminals who's crimes do not exclude them from every being a funtional member of society. Prisoners who commit crimes that justifiably require a sentence of 10 years or less should be given every opportunity to improve themselves and I have no problem with money being spent to help them become productive members of society via rehabilitation. However crimes such as murder, rape, molestation do not qualify for this. These people should not be allowed to continue to be burdens on society and deserve to be executed. 1 trial. One appeal. For prisoners who do not get death, we should not be spending so much money on them and they should be stripped of all of their rights. They should be housed under the bare minimum requirements to sustain human life.
 
muciti said:
The death penalty, if exercised more expediently and more frequently (in murder cases) would save a ton of money. The consumption of innocent life is minimal. Very few things in this world result in no loss of innocent life. As for security, no person who has ever been executed has ever committed another crime that I am aware of.

Our criminal justice system is not just about rehabilitation. It is about punishment. It is about justice. Many people say that the death penatly does not discourage crime. I believe that the reason it fails to deter is because you know you will live 20+ years in comfort at the expense of tax payers. No cares about going to prison because in prison you are coddled by the system. Prison needs to be much more of a place of discomfort. I do not mind spending money to rehabilitate some criminals. Criminals who's crimes do not exclude them from every being a funtional member of society. Prisoners who commit crimes that justifiably require a sentence of 10 years or less should be given every opportunity to improve themselves and I have no problem with money being spent to help them become productive members of society via rehabilitation. However crimes such as murder, rape, molestation do not qualify for this. These people should not be allowed to continue to be burdens on society and deserve to be executed. 1 trial. One appeal. For prisoners who do not get death, we should not be spending so much money on them and they should be stripped of all of their rights. They should be housed under the bare minimum requirements to sustain human life.
Click to expand...

I just don't buy the "if we use it more, it will have an effect" argument. I honestly don't see it. If there's a fail condition, going faster doesn't usually result in alleviating that fail condition. Unless you're in Speed. The inefficiencies I fear would be exacerbated and you'd end up increasing the fail condition rate. While our system is about punishment it doesn't mean that A) that means we can kill prisoners or B) that we can't use it for rehabilitation on some level. It would certainly be more efficient for society overall if we could rehabilitate as many as possible and return them to society. We need cogs. I just don't see abdication of our morality in some cases to be worth it. What are the gains? There's a lot wrong with the system, don't get me wrong. But I don't think we address the issue by killing more prisoners.

Cheaper, easier, you remove one fail condition from the system without it. We should probably not be throwing so many people into prison in the first place.
 
Ikari said:
I just don't buy the "if we use it more, it will have an effect" argument. I honestly don't see it. If there's a fail condition, going faster doesn't usually result in alleviating that fail condition. Unless you're in Speed.
Click to expand...

Doing it more with our current system probably wont help anything. We need to make the death penalty more of a reality. The idea that if you kill someone you will be executed humanely about 20 or so years after you are convicted (25-30 years when you add in the investigation, trial ect) is not a deterrent. Telling someone "if you murder these people we will take care of you and do everything possible to get you into old age and then we will put you to sleep one day" is not going to deter anything. That is not a reality. Now you start punishing people and making life in prison for them hell for a few years then execute them after their first appeal and suddenly prison life doesnt seem so great. There is a big difference there.
While our system is about punishment it doesn't mean that A) that means we can kill prisoners
Click to expand...

Oh it definately does. The debate is not about whether or not we can, but rather whether or not we should.

or B) that we can't use it for rehabilitation on some level. It would certainly be more efficient for society overall if we could rehabilitate as many as possible and return them to society. We need cogs.
Click to expand...

I absolutely believe in rehabilitation for some prisoners. I believe that they should be given every effort to rehabilitate themselves and we should devote more resources to help rehabilitate some of them. Like I said before, it does not apply to all prisoners. What benefit do get attempting rehabilitate someone who is never going to become part of society again? Why not take the resources we are putting into prisoners who rape and murder and use it to rehabilitate people who have a chance at becoming productive citizens?

cogs. I just don't see abdication of our morality in some cases to be worth it. What are the gains? There's a lot wrong with the system, don't get me wrong. But I don't think we address the issue by killing more prisoners.
Click to expand...

This comes back to why should a person who has stolen a life be allowed to keep theirs? Or multiple lives? Why should they continue to be a burden on society? Hell not only do they place a burden on law abiding citizens, but they also put a burden on prison officials and even prisoners. Lets say you have a man in prison for drug possession. Another man in for theft. These men are under constant threat and influence by these murderers and rapists. Why should they be subject to that? Being around these individuals absorb resources that could be used to help them, instead, surrounding them by these maniacs decreases their chances of rehabilitation.

Cheaper, easier, you remove one fail condition from the system without it. We should probably not be throwing so many people into prison in the first place.
Click to expand...

How else would you address crime?
 
Ikari said:
There is no aggregate gain for society however (not to mention the cost). And the generalized use of the death penalty will mean that innocent people will be caught up in it. The death penalty innately consumes innocent life. Calling for more aggressive usage of the death penalty will only exacerbate that.
Click to expand...

I think having, who knows how many, citizens still alive, and/or not having to go through therapy, is a 'gain' for society.

If there are issues where people that are innocent are convicted, fix the broke parts of the system that lead to that. Don't shut down the removal of trash from the planet instead. And the cost could be very inexpensive, bullets are cheap.
 
Arbo said:
I think having, who knows how many, citizens still alive, and/or not having to go through therapy, is a 'gain' for society.

If there are issues where people that are innocent are convicted, fix the broke parts of the system that lead to that. Don't shut down the removal of trash from the planet instead. And the cost could be very inexpensive, bullets are cheap.
Click to expand...

DUI laws are the parts that are broke. Obviously you're not ready to fix that, though.
 
apdst said:
DUI laws are the parts that are broke. Obviously you're not ready to fix that, though.
Click to expand...

Because I don't see the need for people that get a DUI to ever be back on the road so next time they can kill someone?

Please, inform us of what a 'very conservative's view is on what needs to be changed to fix things.
 
Arbo said:
Because I don't see the need for people that get a DUI to ever be back on the road so next time they can kill someone?

Please, inform us of what a 'very conservative's view is on what needs to be changed to fix things.
Click to expand...

Stop creating laws that make law abiding citizens into criminals.

Anyone that can't drive right, after 3 or 4 beers, can't drive right stone sober. DUI laws are just more handwringing, nanny state, busy body bull**** from an over-reaching government.

I'm a member of DAMM--Drunks Against Mad Mothers.
 
Chiefgator said:
LINK


How is this NOT considered "cruel and unusual"???
Click to expand...

cruel and unusual would be say making him drink 5 gallons of beer with no restroom breaks or (an old British interrogation method of the "Mau Mau") pounding a beer bottle up his backside
 
apdst said:
Stop creating laws that make law abiding citizens into criminals.

Anyone that can't drive right, after 3 or 4 beers, can't drive right stone sober. DUI laws are just more handwringing, nanny state, busy body bull**** from an over-reaching government.

I'm a member of DAMM--Drunks Against Mad Mothers.
Click to expand...

Ah... well that explains everything, defending losers because of personal participation in similar actions.
 
Arbo said:
Because I don't see the need for people that get a DUI to ever be back on the road so next time they can kill someone?
Click to expand...

You're advocating the enforcment of a victimless crime. Driving under the influence should not be a crime, there is no victim. There is only the potential for an accident to happen. If you advocate for a police force that enforces victimless, preventative crime; you'll eventually arrive to the police state we have today wherein lemonade stands are police targets because they might hurt somebody :roll:
 
muciti said:
Doing it more with our current system probably wont help anything. We need to make the death penalty more of a reality. The idea that if you kill someone you will be executed humanely about 20 or so years after you are convicted (25-30 years when you add in the investigation, trial ect) is not a deterrent. Telling someone "if you murder these people we will take care of you and do everything possible to get you into old age and then we will put you to sleep one day" is not going to deter anything. That is not a reality. Now you start punishing people and making life in prison for them hell for a few years then execute them after their first appeal and suddenly prison life doesnt seem so great. There is a big difference there.
Click to expand...

So we should torture before killing? I don’t think that’s something we should allow the government to do. And would it even be a deterrent even then? I don’t know, the torture may be more the deterrent than being killed. Even back in the days of roaming vigilantism, there were people committing crimes “worthy” of death; so even if it’s more of a forefront thing, I doubt that it would have much effect. And we’d lose so much in the process. Not a lot of gain, HUGE ethical and moral delimas, and how much will the torture cost us? We don’t have dungeon masters anymore. Well…not outside D&D, and those aren’t the dungeon masters you want.

muciti said:
Oh it definately does. The debate is not about whether or not we can, but rather whether or not we should.
Click to expand...

I suppose on some level. Though taking another human life is huge and we should limit it as much as possible.

muciti said:
I absolutely believe in rehabilitation for some prisoners. I believe that they should be given every effort to rehabilitate themselves and we should devote more resources to help rehabilitate some of them. Like I said before, it does not apply to all prisoners. What benefit do get attempting rehabilitate someone who is never going to become part of society again? Why not take the resources we are putting into prisoners who rape and murder and use it to rehabilitate people who have a chance at becoming productive citizens?
Click to expand...

Are you saying those whom have raped or murdered could never again become a productive citizen? I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. And let’s say for sake of argument that people who commit those crimes are thrown into prison and not “rehabilitated”, that doesn’t mean you may then kill them. No, we throw them in jail and keep them there out of the way of society until their punishment phase is complete. Lifers are of course there for life. But that’s it. That’s as safe as we get in the system and adding the death penalty does not increase that dramatically. Justice is not about revenge.

muciti said:
This comes back to why should a person who has stolen a life be allowed to keep theirs? Or multiple lives?
Click to expand...

Those are not questions for us to answer. We are not gods, we are merely men. Given to all the inscrutable behavior and failings of humans. There are instances when taking a life can mean saving your own, but taking the life is still sad and one should face fully what it is that they’re actually doing.

muciti said:
Why should they continue to be a burden on society? Hell not only do they place a burden on law abiding citizens, but they also put a burden on prison officials and even prisoners. Lets say you have a man in prison for drug possession. Another man in for theft. These men are under constant threat and influence by these murderers and rapists. Why should they be subject to that? Being around these individuals absorb resources that could be used to help them, instead, surrounding them by these maniacs decreases their chances of rehabilitation.
Click to expand...

How much of a burden are they really? As much as our wars in the Middle East? As much as the bailouts to Wallstreet and the banks? There’s a lot of reform that could happen, including changing laws so that we’re not throwing so many people into jail. But a burden to us? No, putting them in jail is a benefit TO us. We’re using outside force to confine them, the least we can do is not kill them while we keep them in their small, little boxes.

muciti said:
How else would you address crime?
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that you cannot address crime without the death penalty? Life in prison without parole is good enough and doesn’t come with all the moral and ethical questions of the death penalty.
 
bonfire said:
You're advocating the enforcment of a victimless crime. Driving under the influence should not be a crime, there is no victim. There is only the potential for an accident to happen. If you advocate for a police force that enforces victimless, preventative crime; you'll eventually arrive to the police state we have today wherein lemonade stands are police targets because they might hurt somebody :roll:
Click to expand...

Total and complete BS. I can't believe, that in modern times, people still exist that push drunk driving as something that is ok. ****ing unbelievable.
 
bonfire said:
You're advocating the enforcment of a victimless crime. Driving under the influence should not be a crime, there is no victim. There is only the potential for an accident to happen. If you advocate for a police force that enforces victimless, preventative crime; you'll eventually arrive to the police state we have today wherein lemonade stands are police targets because they might hurt somebody :roll:
Click to expand...

So - our only option in society is to wait for someone or a group of people to be killed or severely injured and then respond?

A person walking on the sidewalk - going to work? Dead
A family driving - killed on their way home from church? All dead
A boy walking his bike across the street? Forever in a home for the disabled.

How about: we don't just sit idly by while drunk self centered pricks ruin everyone's lives - and actually focus on avoiding the situations that lead to these tragic undoings and horrific events instead? PREVENT these situations from occuring - rather than LETTING them happen and then going 'shame on you!'

You would probably feel different if your life was destroyed because of someone else's buzz.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
So - our only option in society is to wait for someone or a group of people to be killed or severely injured and then respond?

A person walking on the sidewalk - going to work? Dead
A family driving - killed on their way home from church? All dead
A boy walking his bike across the street? Forever in a home for the disabled.

How about: we don't just sit idly by while drunk self centered pricks ruin everyone's lives - and actually focus on avoiding the situations that lead to these tragic undoings and horrific events instead? PREVENT these situations from occuring - rather than LETTING them happen and then going 'shame on you!'

You would probably feel different if your life was destroyed because of someone else's buzz.
Click to expand...

so why don't we arrest all inter-city black youths? They're at a much higher risk to commit a crime than most people!! How about arresting little girls for running lemonade stands? Lets arrest people who play violent video games because that makes youths more likely to commit a crime. :roll: being sleepy at the wheel causes plent of traffic accidents, the police should pull over every driver who is seen yawning!
 
Ikari said:
So we should torture before killing? I don’t think that’s something we should allow the government to do. And would it even be a deterrent even then? I don’t know, the torture may be more the deterrent than being killed. Even back in the days of roaming vigilantism, there were people committing crimes “worthy” of death; so even if it’s more of a forefront thing, I doubt that it would have much effect. And we’d lose so much in the process. Not a lot of gain, HUGE ethical and moral delimas, and how much will the torture cost us? We don’t have dungeon masters anymore. Well…not outside D&D, and those aren’t the dungeon masters you want.
Click to expand...

I personally have no problem torturing convicted murderers. I could care less what happens to a person who murders another person. I would not oppose it at all. However I do understand why some people do.

I suppose on some level. Though taking another human life is huge and we should limit it as much as possible.
Click to expand...

I agree to a certain extent. I dont think we should be taking lives for just any old crime or offense. However if it is known to people that you are forfeiting your life when you choose to take another life, then it is a choice that people are making. More suicide than anything else.

Are you saying those whom have raped or murdered could never again become a productive citizen? I don’t think that’s necessarily the case.
Click to expand...

I dont care whether or not the COULD become a productive citizen again. They should never be given the chance. Their victim is not given a chance at a life, why should they?

Those are not questions for us to answer. We are not gods, we are merely men.
Click to expand...

We are here on Earth. God or any gods are not. This is incredibly flawed logic. We as humans punish our criminals.

There are instances when taking a life can mean saving your own, but taking the life is still sad and one should face fully what it is that they’re actually doing.
Click to expand...

Self defense is not murder.

How much of a burden are they really?
Click to expand...

They are a huge burden. $40,000+ a year is in the lower end of estimates.

s much as our wars in the Middle East? As much as the bailouts to Wallstreet and the banks?
Click to expand...

This has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion.
including changing laws so that we’re not throwing so many people into jail.
Click to expand...

Which is what i replied "how else do you address crime" and you immediately went back to the death penalty.


You mention above that we should not be taking lives. That we should be limiting the number of people who's lives are taken. Why does this only have to include the government? By executing murderers we are protecting lives. A murderer can kill dozens of people. Taking that murderers life takes 1. 1 life that is not innocent vs dozens of innocent lives. That is pretty straight forward I think.

Also these murderers sitting in prison are actively murdering other inmates. Taking more lives. And even worse, they corrupt other criminals who may otherwise never resort to becoming murderers. Murderers add nothing to society. They do not give their victims a chance at life and therefore they do not deserve achance at life themselves. They deserve to be quickly executed.
 
muciti said:
Accidental deaths caused while committing a crime are treated as murder under any other circumstance. Why should murdering someone while drunk make it suddenly better?
Click to expand...

Because being drunk isn't a crime. You mean driving while drunk, and you do have a point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom