Death Sentences

lucifer's_angel:

I don't think we have forced labour in Australia.

Erm.

Yes, it makes their stay in prison somewhat detrimental to society, doesn't it?

I'd call it beneficial.

*clarification* I meant our system, sorry.

I guess the death sentence is sometimes a good thing. People can change, and that's what prison is for. But sometimes people refuse to change, and if they ever get out of prison, they'll go right back to murdering people. And then, if there's a really, really awful prison, where unspeakable things are going on day after day among the prisoners, death penalty would be the nicest thing you can do to a criminal.

^ I think if someone is comitting really heinous crimes, they will be kept in prison for long enough that when they are released, they definately won't re-offend; i.e., months before 'their time is up'.

I think if a prison is so awful that death would be a better alternative, the government should be doing something about that.

I think that no person has the right to say they are killing out of mercy.

[seemingly contradictorily, I believe in euthanasia to an extent, provided there are safeguards to its exploitation in place].

lucifer's_angel:

^ I think if someone is comitting really heinous crimes, they will be kept in prison for long enough that when they are released, they definately won't re-offend; i.e., months before 'their time is up'.

I think if a prison is so awful that death would be a better alternative, the government should be doing something about that.

I think that no person has the right to say they are killing out of mercy.

[seemingly contradictorily, I believe in euthanasia to an extent, provided there are safeguards to its exploitation in place].

People can escape from prison. And sometimes, when they get out of prison after doing most of their sentence, they can't adjust to life outside of jail, like in Shawshank Redemption, the old man gets out of jail and kills himself cause he can't adjust.

Yeah, the government should be doing something about it, but they usually aren't.

Okay, I've changed my mind. I think people should be given a choice, death penalty or life sentence. Cause I think I'd choose death penalty.

As for euthanasia, I might condone with in it an extreme case. But if I was a doctor, I wouldn't do it.

Euthanasia is about extreme cases. It is in-aptly an illegal act, assisted suicide, by the law, I think. I mean, it's about ending your life with dignity; not having to go through a great deal of suffering.

*cough*
I think a judge should be responsible for the decision of the penalty. Someone with a strong legal background, who had seen enough cases to justify their sentence. But I would prefer to live somewhere where the legal system had ended death sentencing - because I believe it's wrong; as it's been pointed out, more eloquently than I could hope to recite, How is killing a killer showing that killing is wrong? If you care so much about the sanctity of life that you would want to give a murderer the death sentence, how can you justify that?

So occasionally people can't adjust to life outside prison. Do we take matters out of their hands and just end things early? Are the same people saying "suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem"? When can death be the answer to an issue? And if one feels that it is, how can anyone but the person whose life it is make that choice? And how is justice being served or society benefiting from the government killing people? The idea of rehabilitation is that if the person serves their sentence and becomes a productive member of society, everyone wins.

Quote

Euthanasia is about extreme cases. It is in-aptly an illegal act, assisted suicide, by the law, I think. I mean, it's about ending your life with dignity; not having to go through a great deal of suffering.

Yeah..and I'd condone that...just so long as the person didn't have a chance to live anyways.

Quote

I think a judge should be responsible for the decision of the penalty. Someone with a strong legal background, who had seen enough cases to justify their sentence. But I would prefer to live somewhere where the legal system had ended death sentencing - because I believe it's wrong; as it's been pointed out, more eloquently than I could hope to recite, How is killing a killer showing that killing is wrong? If you care so much about the sanctity of life that you would want to give a murderer the death sentence, how can you justify that?

The death penalty is for getting rid of the killer, and it's certainly going to scare at least a few people out of commiting crimes. And I don't care about the sanctity of the corrupted lives of murders. Murderes are practically insane. But I do care about the sanctity of innocent people who didn't want to be murdered but were.

As for all the rest of those questions, there's no solid answer to those. It all depends on the person, the situation, and the location. And rehabilitation is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't always work.

Scare? But you'd just said that murderers would find the death sentence comforting compared to life in prison...

People are people, life is life. Why not say that one race is less deserving of life than another, or one gender, or religion, or orientation; or pettier criminals - assault charges, parking tickets...
Most murders are not done by maniacs - they are done with a motive, and the majority are by someone you knew. They feel they have a reason. Some may have just acted in the heat of the moment. What about a woman who finally kills her abusive husband, following years of domestic violence? If it is 'proven' that the murder was 'pre-meditated', should she recieve the death penalty?

The jury delivers a verdict of guilty or not guilty. Imagine if you were on a jury, and knew that the wife I mentioned earlier killed her husband. Even that she had planned the murder. But what if your verdict of guilty sent her to her death? Is that right?

This all leads up to the question, How many people murdered were completely innocent? Now I am certainly not implying that a single one deserved to be killed. But again, How is killing the killer showing that killing is wrong?

Maybe rehabilitation doesn't always work. Are you saying we should give up at the start, without even trying? Kill the person immediately following the trial?

I would think that if a person really cared about people, they'd give them a chance to live, at least. A chance to change. A chance to repent.

Speaking of repention, I've noticed a number of advocates of the death penalty are religious .. which is again contradictory, along with the entire notion of the death penalty. Shouldn't people have the opportunity to repent? To serve penance for their crimes?

And finally, I mean, what if the murder was an accident, or the accused was completely innocent. People are found guilty unfairly all the time. What good will a cold apology from the government ten years later be to the grieving family of the 'murderer'.

I meant people who haven't murdered yet, but were planning to.

I know, murderers are generally normal people. But /after/ they murder the person, well, either you're so jaded that you don't care, or you want to die of regret. As for killing an abusive husband, well, I hope that her lawyer can prove that her husband was abusive, and then I hope the judge will let her off on a somewhat lighter sentence.

No, it's wrong. But her death doesn't rest with the jury, it rests with the judge, who hopefully has some good sense and won't sentence her to death.

It's not showing that killing is wrong. But everyone already knows that killing is wrong, so it doesn't really matter. But it is getting rid of a murderer and maybe a few potential murderers.

Are there any serial killers, at all, who have been rehabilliated? Or people who just go around kidnapping kids and killing them? I think if you're going to kill a child, you deserve death.

Fact is, religious people don't feel the death penalty is as harsh as non-religious people, because we believe in life after death, and so it's hard to see death as such an awful thing.

Of course if it was accidental, or they caught the wrong guy, I would put all the responsibility on the judge and the jury. Isn't that what they're for? If they don't know an innocent man when they see one, they don't have a right to judge.

You rely much on hope in people, especially considering you just condemned a percentage of murderers as cold, heartless, evil shells of human beings o.o

Sure murderers have been rehabilitated. Serial murderers, child killers, yes. People make awful, terrible mistakes. And I think if the mistake is bad enough, we can let them rot in prison for almost all of their natural life.

"So it's hard to see death as such an awful thing" .. Excuse me? If an innocent person died, then by your reasoning, have they not ascended unto Heaven, which is apparently a better place to be than the Earth? So why punish the murderer at all? He did them a favour, after all. And if he really is totally unremorseful, then God will punish him in Hell for eternity. And if he isn't, then why can he not be forgiven for his sins, by penance?

People make mistakes, and you would have an innocent jury and judge condemned as murderers because of that? It seems like these days, it is the price of your lawyer per hour that determines the outcome of the case, rather than Truth or Justice. Bad people 'get off' all the time. And as it is the prosecution's job to make the defendant look guilty, if they're good at that, who's fault is it really?

Everyone knows killing is wrong .. Then how can someone be totally uncaring? Or if they are totally uncaring, is that always wrong - what about the case of the abused wife?

I'm sensing some black / white contrasts here .. I believe that no one is totally perfect, or totally evil. We're all just trying to wade through the grey.

^There are good people, and there are bad people. I have hope in the good ones and I don't like the bad ones.

Rotting in prison isn't very nice. Like I've said before, I'd much rather die than go to prison for my whole life.

Heaven and hell don't work like that. There's (in my belief) no such thing as an unforgiveable sin. You don't rot in hell for eternity. IF you are guilty, you rot in hell for a while, and then you repent (it'll happen, eventually), and you are forgiven and admitted into heaven. This would make the death penalty completely fair.

No I wouldn't have them condmened as murderers unless it was intentional. They just need to have an unprejudiced look at the accused, and a good look at the evidence, and alot of meditation before sentencing. Of course, that doesn't always happen. The justice system nowadays, like you said, all boils down to having a good lawyer. It really doesn't work, but it's all we have.

I know that it's wrong to, say, throw eggs at people. Does that mean that I will /not/ throw eggs at people? (for the record, I have never thrown eggs at people)

You're right. No one is totally perfect nor totally evil. But there are people who turn out bad, and refuse to even TRY being good people.

I think it was Socrates who said that, if given the choice, and one is educated on the choice, one will pick the Good option. People do not choose to be unhappy, nor do they choose to do evil, unless they are uninformed that they can pick the Good alternative.

He believed all people were, basely, if not good, then they would desire to do good things, because doing good things made one happy. And people choose happy over sad.

I think that's true; I think any evil act is just uninformed, on some level. The person feels it is the right decision to make.

I don't think I believe in evil at all. Just wrong. Or, just mistakes.

You have admitted that our justice system is flawed. Yet you continue to say you are placing complete faith in its ability to find the 'correct' outcome. This won't always happen. There is no such thing as an unbiased person. That's why the prosecution and defence empanel the jury as they please. Because they are trying to make a jury of people biased towards their cause, their claims.

If you are to be judged after death, then I say let yourself be judged after death. If what you have done since comitting the crime outweighs the crime, then a person gains entry into Heaven. If they don't, so be it.

Note: Wow, you don't have eternal Hell in your religion? That's awesome, I actually don't think I've heard of that before, besides maybe through Dante .. Question though, when you say you repent, what does that mean? You acknowledge the sin of what you've done? What about something like homosexuality, if you're a good person, but gay, and God doesn't like that, will he torture you until you tell Him you're straight, and very sorry for the misunderstanding?

You don't consider someone who rapes and murders an eight year old girl evil? You think it just seemed like the right thing to do? It was a mistake? What did he MEAN to do?

I HOPE it will find the correct outcome but that doesn't mean it will. But I still hold to the fact that if I was innocent, and I was facing a lifetime of jail, I'd still rather have death.
Judges should be unbiased before all the evidence, and then again unbiased during the defence. And they definately shouldn't make any quick decisions.

I don't believe you can outweigh a serious crime, you still have to do time for it. But it might be a lighter sentence, especially if you've tried very hard to make amends.

Quote

Note: Wow, you don't have eternal Hell in your religion? That's awesome, I actually don't think I've heard of that before, besides maybe through Dante .. Question though, when you say you repent, what does that mean? You acknowledge the sin of what you've done? What about something like homosexuality, if you're a good person, but gay, and God doesn't like that, will he torture you until you tell Him you're straight, and very sorry for the misunderstanding?

Gay people going to hell is a very complicated issue. To put it all into a few sentences is very difficult. But I'd guess that God will look into the person's heart, and judge according to whether it was true love, or just someone who decided he had a weird fetish.

Being gay is a .. weird fetish? When what, 3-10% of the population is [admittedly]gay?
... Mm.

I don't think that person is evil, I think they're sick. When I say sick, I mean they should be counselled, and treated for their illness. If they get better, they should be able to re-join society. If they don't, then they pose a threat to society, and should be kept in incarceration till a period where they get better. If that's never, so be it. But they've been given the chance.

In reference to the repeated comments you've made that you would prefer to be killed than to go to prison for life (and are you intending to be totally unrepentant? Do you mean an actual lifetime in prison?), then, to be perfectly honest, we're not pandering to the wants to convicted murderers. You either will learn from your mistake, or you'll stay in prison.

You say people will be taught their lesson in Hell - not to put it too bluntly, but that's just your opinion. Let's say for the sake of argument that Buddhism is the true faith; so your theory goes out the window.

When I say 'outweigh a serious crime' I mean if they are repentant, released, and then, say, get a job, work your way up to Partner, and run charity functions to help the underprivileged. For the rest of your life, you help others. I mean, better option much?

I guess it'd be rarely a weird fetish. But, you know, there's always the guy who's had so much sex with women that he's tired of it and so turns to...alternative choices. That's sorta weird.

Well, I think they're evil. And also sick-minded. And perverted. And if treatment was at least 80% guarenteed, I'd say give it a try.

Murderers rarely get out of jail before serving like 50 years of a life sentence. That's all the good part of your life. By the time I'd get out, I'd be so old I wouldn't even want to live.

Yeah but my beliefs are my beliefs, and I'm only debating this point because I believe in them, and not some other religion. It's a good thing we're not all christians like me, or we might have death penalities. And that is why we have so many different religions, to make sure at least someone gets the right one.

But not many people would take that option. That is the hard way, and it's instinct to take the easy way. And most people who get out of jail find it very difficult to find decent jobs. And without a decent income, it's difficult to help yourself, let alone other people.

I was under the impression that [here, at least] the highest penalty for one, wilful murder, was 25 years. With possibility of a shorter actual sentence.

Who's fault is it if an ex-convict cannot get a good job? I'd say society. They won't give them the oppurtunity to rise in an industry. But even with a small income, you can help people. What if the person became a social worker. Or just got involved in voluntary community activities. Reaching out, trying to help people on any scale - how is local any less important than on a higher level? You think money = happiness?

On the gay note, Yes. That sounds like an extremely, extremely rare occurrence. A guy who has had so much sex with women he tires of it?
And by 'alternative choices', what, being gay? You know, it's highly likely there is a gay gene. And there are people born gay. And its attitudes like their orientation being called a weird fetish, or a sexual perversion, that destroy people.

Well, if you commit one willful murder, you're not going to get a death penalty so it's not really an issue.

Society can't be blamed, because in general, it's corrupt. Especially compared to what it used to be. And I'm not sure if someone who was cruel enough to murder their fellow human beings would actually want to help society all that much. As for money, the sad thing about it is that many people believe that money equals happiness, so it's the only thing they strive for.

It happens. Even in the bible it's mentioned. I don't believe anyone was born gay, I think they choose it, and because people are accepting gays more and more, there are more gay people than there used to be. There's nothing wrong with it, but there it is. It's a fact.

Again, you venerate one part of society, and are now condemning not just the evil evil murderers, but 'society in general'. Compared to what it used to be? In the past, we had Hitler, Pol Pot, Ghenghis Khan, we had something apporaching evil. Today we've got capitalism, which to refer to what you were saying in another thread, is caused by 'the bad guys', right?

People. Make. Mistakes. Accidents do happen. People die injustly all the time. I don't believe anyone on this earth has the authority to take someone's life. So what a murderer does is wrong, but we are just as wrong to take theirs!

Yeah, money can equal happiness. People do seem greedier. But the fairly poor seem happiest, right? They have so little to lose. The cherish what they do have.
Anyway its almost 4 am, so I will rebut your rebuttal anon.

_____
Look, there have been scientific studies and scientific speculations, admittedly the former more valid than the latter, which indicate there is a gay gene. That meant that your God, if He is real, made us gay. Is that so hard to accept? What exactly is wrong with it? If God meant for everyone who could love to have children, why does he on occasion make infertile people?
I'm gay, it wasn't a choice, it's who I am.

Even in the days of Hitler, etc. there was less crime among the common people. People still had a sense of honour and a conscience, which some people don't have nowadays.

I don't believe there's such a thing as a mistake. You cause whatever happens by choice, and if you did not think your choice through or seeked help if you were unsure, then it's your fault. You didn't have to do it.

I didn't say that money=happiness. I said that money making you happy is an illusion.

I still think it was choice. It's hard to believe anything scientists have to say. They used to be completely sure that the world was flat... And I don't think it's wrong to be gay. The only reason why God doesn't like gay people is because he didn't make them that way. I suppose infertility happens because God knows something we don't.

I think that the death sentence should be used for rape, murder, and kidnaping, but it should not be used for manslaughter. I also think that lethal injection should be the only form used. No electric chair, no hanging.