View Poll Results: Should Capital Punishment be supported?

Voters
90. You may not vote on this poll
  • It should be supported in both principle and practice.

    43 47.78%
  • Yes in principle, but not in practice due to the ambiguity of social bias.

    14 15.56%
  • It should be opposed both in principle and practice.

    33 36.67%
Page 9 of 42 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 416

Thread: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-22-08 @ 12:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    947

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    The best comment I heard was by a police officer who said that in his opinion there are two justifications of capital punishment.

    1. It does NOT deter anyone from committing a murder and is not a deterrent in that regards. However, it is a deterrent to that person ever committing murder again. People are murdered in prison by murderers.

    2. Our society demands a person not take law into their own hands, to instead allow society to undertake just punishment. Therefore, society should do so.

    I just heard last week that a person who had murdered 7 people was being released on parole. How is that justice? Society didn't do its task.

    If an individual can kill another person in self defense or defense of another, so then should the government.

    I don't think "murder" is the trigger for capital punishment. Rather, it is the level of brutality and the lack of humanity the criminal exhibited. A person robbing a store in a panic shooting the clerk is terrible. But it is not as terrible as the man who raped a woman in the desert and then chopped off her arms with an ax - though she lived. The latter one is more deserving of death and the more a future danger to everyone. The death penalty should be reserved for mad dogs who found pleasure in extreme violent and multilating acts of sadism.

    I also believe in banishment.
    Last edited by Bonnie1988; 11-25-08 at 04:43 PM.

  2. #82
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bonnie1988 View Post
    If an individual can kill another person in self defense or defense of another, so then should the government.

    Good point. In direct defense of a person (self or otherwise), killing can be acceptable.

    But in retaliation (which is what the Death penalty really is), nobody is allowed to kill, and IMO that "nobody" should include the government.

    Nobody is allowed to kill another person in POTENTIAL defense, which is what argument #1 is calling for.

    Argument #2 is just the vengeance argument reworded.



    And I would say that anyone who is convicted of murder should never be released. Why allow them to become recidivist?
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #83
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-22-08 @ 12:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    947

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    Good point. In direct defense of a person (self or otherwise), killing can be acceptable.

    But in retaliation (which is what the Death penalty really is), nobody is allowed to kill, and IMO that "nobody" should include the government.

    Nobody is allowed to kill another person in POTENTIAL defense, which is what argument #1 is calling for.

    Argument #2 is just the vengeance argument reworded.



    And I would say that anyone who is convicted of murder should never be released. Why allow them to become recidivist?
    It is ok to have murderers live long in prison because you only care if people not in prison are protected, but its ok to subject people in prison to murderers?

    Do your think that really is possible within human nature? Can we outlaw core humanity? The emotional humanity? Is retaliation always immoral even?

    In my instance, some of the men outright told him if he ever came back they will take him out in one of the swamps and kill him - so don't come back. The sheriff's department (no city police) told him they had a duty to protect him but given how remote, rural etc it is unlikely they could. Why did the men tell him this? Self protection of everyone in the community.

    This is a very friendly and live-and-let-live community. They ignore "victimless crimes" (like drug laws) as long as they remain victimless. But is also is essentially a zero crime area - literally disbanded the police department years ago. The very rare crimes that happen they claim are always by outsiders.

    That was so in my case also. The lack of crime is many reasons including higher levels of economics, sense of community, alarms, everyone knows and looking out for everyone, lots of guns, a very strong "castle doctrine" and - I suspect - the occasional disappearances in the swamp justice history that dates back to the beginning.

    Unfortunately, our legal system doesn't protect people from crime. It only attempts (often doesn't) to punish the person after the fact for a limited time in jail. Punishment doesn't in any way erase what the victim(s) went through.

    People are not solely logical creatures. They are also emotionally driven. Law can only go so far in controlling emotions. I'll give an extreme theoretical example...

    A man who had murdered your child who "served his time" is in line with you at a grocery store. You and your wife were never able to have another child. The man looks at you, smiles and says, "well, seems I did my part for population control. Your daughter sure was a pretty little thing. Wish you could see the look on her face and have heard her screams while I was stabbing her."

    Law allows nothing but a verbal response from you.

    Is that anywhere near real?

    I was just involved in a criminal case in which the DA asked what I wanted in the sentencing. What I wanted was banishment of the person from my life in every possible way while in and after release from prison. That mattered
    far more to me than how long he would be in prison. Punishment of him didn't matter to me because it did nothing for me whatsoever. The ONLY interest I had in prison was prison assured he was out of my life. What mattered is him out of my life and also not forcing anyone else to constrain themselves in relation to him.

    My list was very long and the court ordered all of it as conditions while in prison, conditions for eligibility for future parole and parole conditions. These included (nor is all of them)that he never state my name except in court proceedings, that he never come within 100 miles of my residence nor within 100 yards of any of my relatives or my boyfriend (by name), and no direct or indirect contact of any kind. It also ordered in the event of a child he has exactly no parental rights of any kind nor can claim parentage.

    To me it wasn't how long he was in prison, but how long those terms could be imposed is what mattered. The sentencing specified the maximum jail term - a relatively short time (very short), but also imposed the absolute maximum allowed in law for the offense - which is life - for the terms of banishment. He received far less prison time in exchange for life long banishment from my life and the community. That protects me, everyone and even him.

    Seriously, if I looked up and he was on the other side of the front door, is it anywhere realistic that I would say "hi, how ya doing?" to him? Or is it just gut human nature - unavoidable, uncontrollable - that I'd instantly open up on him with a .357 - later POSSIBLY deciding that was an over reaction?

    If instead my boy friend came to the door and he was there, what is a realistic response he would (or even should) have? Now just continuously worry if he's out in the woods around our house? Never again go outside alone? Live in constant fear imprisoned in our house?

    I do believe societal retaliation is justifiable and called for. Prison is a retaliation, any punishment is. Most people want Osama Bin Ladin dead. Is there a contradiction in that?

    Does this slogan work? "Just because someone illegally imprisoned you, that doesn't justify society imprisoning that person." That is the same slogan for anti-death penalty. Isn't a life sentence with no possibility of parole also inhumane?

    Do you agree with the principle of banishment?
    Last edited by Bonnie1988; 11-25-08 at 05:25 PM.

  4. #84
    Matthew 16:3
    Tucker Case's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,365

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    I'm not actually discussing th emorality of it. It's just not the govenremtn's job to retaliate.

    And I think prison should only be used to remove a danger from the general population, which is what it really is used for, not as punishment.

    Punishment serves no logical purpose, and is not what the governemtn should concern itself with.


    As far as personal retaliation, I was speaking about it being illegal, not immoral. In fact, in some cases personal retaliation is perfectly alright with me. I might kill someone who killed my child.

    If I were deemed a threat to the population for that, then I should be removed from the general population for that. But if it were deemed that I was not a threat to the population over that act, then I should NTO be removed formteh general population for it.

    My theory is that peopole who are a denger to th epopulation should be removed from the general population fo rht eduiration that they remain a threat.

    If that means the remainder of their existence, so be it.

    I don't argure for incarceration as a punishment. I argue for incarceration as a preventative against the general population.

    As far as deterents for lesser crimes, theft and such, I'm in favor of canings. An asswhooping is more effective than anything else for changing negative behavior.

    Reapeat offenses get incarcerated for the length of time they are deemed to be a threat.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  5. #85
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-22-08 @ 12:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    947

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I'm not actually discussing th emorality of it. It's just not the govenremtn's job to retaliate.

    And I think prison should only be used to remove a danger from the general population, which is what it really is used for, not as punishment.

    Punishment serves no logical purpose, and is not what the governemtn should concern itself with.


    As far as personal retaliation, I was speaking about it being illegal, not immoral. In fact, in some cases personal retaliation is perfectly alright with me. I might kill someone who killed my child.

    If I were deemed a threat to the population for that, then I should be removed from the general population for that. But if it were deemed that I was not a threat to the population over that act, then I should NTO be removed formteh general population for it.

    My theory is that peopole who are a denger to th epopulation should be removed from the general population fo rht eduiration that they remain a threat.

    If that means the remainder of their existence, so be it.

    I don't argure for incarceration as a punishment. I argue for incarceration as a preventative against the general population.

    As far as deterents for lesser crimes, theft and such, I'm in favor of canings. An asswhooping is more effective than anything else for changing negative behavior.

    Reapeat offenses get incarcerated for the length of time they are deemed to be a threat.
    I agree with the distinction between illegality and morality.

    I don't think our society would ever allow corporal punishment for crime as "cruel and unusual punishment." However, out in society is fear of corporal (violent) retaliation that keeps many people in check. My BF is very big on using potential corporal punishment (fear of him beating the hell out of the other guy) to keep people getting out of line back in line at the bar he sings and works at very effectively.

    One reason message boards can go so out of wack with trolls is there is no fear of corporal retaliation or response.
    Last edited by Bonnie1988; 11-25-08 at 05:43 PM.

  6. #86
    Dream Walker
    Monk-Eye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Seen
    07-16-15 @ 10:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    2,265
    Blog Entries
    10

    Statutory Ignorance

    "Statutory Ignorance"
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonnie1988 View Post
    It also ordered in the event of a child he has exactly no parental rights of any kind nor can claim parentage.
    IMO you do not have a legal leg on which to stand.

    With the ceded suspicion that he produced a child, at age eighteen the childs records will be unsealed and he may pursue paternal contact.

  7. #87
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,614

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Finding those people and ensuring that they are such is going to be pretty hard.
    I'm not so sure about that, I think you can find people who are well-educated and can be shown to be generally unbiased, which is a damn sight better than we have in the current jury system.

    As I understand it, most of the lawyers representing death row inmates are public defenders who don't have a stake in that. Unlike in civil court where they can get huge payoffs for winning, public defenders have set salaries. There really isn't incentive to lie, cheat and steal for them.
    I wasn't talking about the death row defenders, I meant the legal system in general. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

    I never intended that. The CEO of Worldcom was an example of whether or not we should execute those who are going to die in prison anyways as you suggested even for non-violent crimes. Is cooking the books worthy of execution like serial murder?
    As I said before, in my opinion it isn't if you're going to sentence someone specifically to death, but from a purely practical standpoint, anyone who is never going to get out of prison for any reason is just wasting prison space that could be better put to use for a criminal that might actually get something out of incarceration.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! The Bitchspot Blog YouTube me! The Bitchspot Channel

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Last Seen
    12-22-08 @ 12:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    947

    Re: Statutory Ignorance

    Quote Originally Posted by Monk-Eye View Post
    "Statutory Ignorance"

    IMO you do not have a legal leg on which to stand.

    With the ceded suspicion that he produced a child, at age eighteen the childs records will be unsealed and he may pursue paternal contact.
    You might be right if it was otherwise an established fact he is the biological father, but there are exactly none.

    His name will appear on exactly no records of my child whatsoever. There are and will be exactly no records nor any dna tests to even obtain so there would be nothing to build a case on. The birth certificate will identify the father and not as him - a man I live with, own a house with and in a sexual relationship with. No fact ever has been established or will be established in any record of any linkage whatsoever. No "child records" will contradict parentage.

    When released he will be on parole literally for life and that question has already been adjudicated. Even in normal circumstances, I doubt any court would allow a man to obtain a court order for a dna sample against an 18 year old with exactly nothing other than a claim he had sex with the 18 year old's mother 2 decades ago as the basis - even if consentual. In general, courts
    don't give rapists parental rights even if parentage is established - which is not nor any basis to do so.

    Nor would he likely care to try nor to risk trying as doing so would violate his terms of parole - all terms he agreed to and then were ordered (not only by the criminal court but ratified by a civil court) so essentially he already lost in court. He would literally be asking a civil court 2 decades later to allow contact he was ordered not to make by both a criminal and civil court and with his on-record agreement all only on his theory of parentage based upon aggravated sexual assault. While on parole a person's otherwise normal rights are highly restricted and he would not face a friendly judge.

    The only complexity would be if he contacted my daughter as an adult and talked her into a dna test - but then if she were agreeable to contact he wouldn't need a court order anyway.

    I doubt any adult would be agreeable to someone showing claiming to be her real biological father because he had raped her mother and therefore it was him, not the man who claimed to be the father that she lived with at the time, was on the birth certificate and was there from her conception to birth. If some convict came to you and told you that he was your real father because he raped you mother decades ago, would you listen and decide that was a man you'd like to get to know better?

    If you were that man an on parole on a life sentence a condition of which was never contacting any relative of the victim - which you had agreed to in criminal (and civil) court - would you risk a parole violation hearing claiming
    rapist's rights as your case to violate that parole condition? Why?

    Lastly he'd have to come here to challenge the existing court orders of two courts. This is not a friendly system here to such as him. Even in court when he made an apologizing statement and that he wished that my BF or myself has shot and killed him at the scene, the judge's exactly statement was "so do I, but since that unfortunately didn't happen, here we all are." A more realistic outcome is the court would make a determination he violated his parole for one reason or another and send him back to prison just for trying.
    Last edited by Bonnie1988; 11-25-08 at 06:13 PM.

  9. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 10:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by AKLee View Post
    Hello there people,

    Just a thought here: in many developed regions we see the abolishment of capital punishment as a penalty for any crime. However, there still exists countries that do still exercise the death penalty system (approximately 90 countries) with 38 out of 50 states in the U.S. still endorsing the death penalty.

    A major element of the argument will be the value of life: the side that supports capital punishment may argue that abolishing it results in the devaluation of respect for human life as the punishment is not proportionate and as such, does not reflect the significance of the crime. Also, the fact that the punishment is congruent to the crime proves that the system reflects the objective of the judiciary system: to deter.

    The side that opposes capital punishment may argue that in the simplest of terms, execution is state-seanctioned killing - how different will taking the life of a killer be than taking the life of an innocent if the main objective is to preserve human life in general? Moreover, who is the judiciary system to have the right to take away one's right to life - the most fundamental of all rights? We all know how prejudice clouds judgement, especially in the fragile glass sheet that is today's society. Social bias makes secularity impossible, making the system unequal and as such, impossible to implement capital punishment in.

    So what do you think? Should the use capital punishment be supported or opposed?

    -Alex
    The amusing irony in the debate about capital punishment is that it seems the people who are most adamantly against Capital Punishment have no qualms with someone getting an abortion. I wonder why that is?


  10. #90
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    38,477

    Re: Is Capital Punishment Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    The amusing irony in the debate about capital punishment is that it seems the people who are most adamantly against Capital Punishment have no qualms with someone getting an abortion. I wonder why that is?

    I wonder how people can support the war in Iraq and not the war in Afghanistan. Or how people who ran away from the war in Vietnam through deferments could be so supportive of the war in Iraq. Oh wait that's right. Two completely different issues. Carry on.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 11-25-08 at 06:32 PM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

Page 9 of 42 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •