[dragoncrusher]

lol, nice club... im into serious debates, got an A for debate :), and i can do some serious discussions.
so yah, i wanna join too

[DDv]

Sure. ;)

I think we have enough members now, but I'll wait till tomorrow and see who else wants to join.
Be prepared. :)

*minor update*
Added Miscellaneous/Tips.
Increased the minimum number of posts to 100.
(Since Titens is already a member she's an exception.)

[DDv]

Since it's already 00:30 AM here, let's begin with our very first topic:
Capital punisment (aka death sentence)

Is it needed? Is it acceptable? What are it's PROs/CONs?

Don't hold back!

[Titens]

I believe that noone, not even society, has the right to take someone's life. And that reason is enough for me to go against it even if it were to save more lifes in the long run.
That's why I'm gonna try to leave moral issues like the one I just named, and try sticking to it's practical use (Of course, in the end, it's impossible to leave moral nd feelings aside... noone can, but at least i'll try to give more room to reason). Please try reading carefully, I know it might look complicated, but it's something I learned in law school, that everyone can understand and that maybe helps to see the world with diferent eyes. Not going to tell you to take this as the ONLY TRUTH at all, but t's good if you take it at least in consideration.

I believe that it has a use for the society, but it is limited. I'll try to explain. Nowadays, most of the penal systems in the whole world rely on prisons as it's main weapon to punish criminals. Other kinds of punishments exist, but when it comes to big crimes they always end relying on it. Lots of theories have been made trying to show the greatness of the liberty privation punishments (don't know how exactly it's called in english), and most of them name two:

1st: It servers as a place where the criminals can become good citizens again.
2nd: It works as a weapon of fear that makes people think twice before commiting a crime.

Problem is, both of these two uses are limited in reality.
The first one for practical reasons, because most of the penal sistems don't work well, and criminals leave prison worse than they entered... and the discrimination they gain from society when they are out make things even worse.
The second use is undeniable, but it's also limited. People think that bigger punishments make people more scared of commiting a crime, but reality shows that it's a complete lie. A criminal won't stop killing people just because the punishment is 2 years or prison, 5, 10, life or death sentence. He kills people because he trully believes that he won't get cought. If he knew that he would end in prison, if he was certain of it, he wouldn't kill anyone even if the punishment was of 3 years. Stadistics show this is a fact. That's why other kind of punishments would fill this role perfectly. What is needed is more eficiency, not bigger punishments.

Where am I trying to reach with all of this. In the end, the main reason why prisons exist, is one that most jurists or politicians refuse to admit, and that is t keep prisioners isolated from society for some years and that way keep the people happy. This is true, but is also extremely expensive for the society, and in the end it doesn't solve anything. And for worse, in most of the countries, prisions are already at numbers like the 120% of their capacity, and that forces them to leave the not so dangerous criminals out when they should be inside, or at least recieve a punishment of other kind.

Here is when DS comes in handy. Killing a man is really cheap, and you make sure he won't be making more crimes after he leaves prison. This might sound cruel, but it's the main reason for this kind of punishment to exist.
The second reason is a much more popular one, and it's that many criminals no longer can be changed back to normal, and they'll be a constant threat to society. And also that leaving them isolated for their whole life is no better than killing them. I believe that this is the most convincing reason of all, and it depends a lot in the moral values we have. But again, this also has to be limited. Most of the criminals can be restored into society, with a system that works well. Problem is, prisons are unable to do this. New kinds of punishments are needed. They might be expensive, they might not work, but killing them just because prisons fail to help them (or us in the long way) can't be right. Problem is people prefer to see criminals dead than having their taxes spent in people who's main hobbie is rape lil girls -.- (who doesn't... but oh well). This way noone think for better ways of solving crime (for ex.. in many cases of rapists, just to castrate them would solve the problem instead of killing them. Of course, only sometimes it would).

That's why I think that DS has it's uses for the actual system. But as I said, noone has the right to kill. That's why I believe that efforts should be spent in making better punishments that can actually solve things, even if it takes time, money and work. I trully believe that better thing can be done.

I leave matter like "No chances to atone" or "Killing an inocent man" for later.

If you don't understand of just don't agree, please quote the part, not just say "you are wrong, because I say so".

[reminder]

I'll try to help you all and avoid some common mistakes, so I'll list most of cons/pros I know. Add something if you feel that's important.


Against death penalty

*from a moral point point of view, killing a criminal is rather immoral. So, if criminal is not killed, no one is forced to press the button/trigger.
*some people from death row are proved to be innocent after new methods of investigation are applied. So, killing them would be unfair.
Proof : [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
*some people believe that "suffering for many years" is a more proper punishment than a quick death.
*Laws in many countries defend the rights of the people. All people, even murderers, so enacting law about death penalty would go against government's policy.
*Getting tough on crime increases crime
Proof : [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
*death penalty actually costs more than life sentence
Proof : [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
*Church says "No"
Proof : [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

For death penalty

*Murderers sometimes kill other people in prison, run away, take the crimes of others (therefore setting them free), do inhuman things (genocide, mass murders) and can't be considered to be humans anymore.
Proof : I'll provide if you need it, too lazy to look for it now.
*Capital punishment IS painful. Unlike some forms of suicide, which are possible in prison.
*Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. It would be unfair to the victim's relatives to leave his murderer alive. Many families want revenge, while only some don't.
*Life in prison is not tough, especially in some countries/states. Therefore, convicts get food/drinks, all kinds of services and lots of free time, instead of pain. In some cases, living on a death row is better for the convict than his life in freedom.

[Titens]

Originally Posted by reminder

*Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. It would be unfair to the victim's relatives to leave his murderer alive. Many families want revenge, while only some don't.
*Life in prison is not tough, especially in some countries/states. Therefore, convicts get food/drinks, all kinds of services and lots of free time, instead of pain. In some cases, living on a death row is better for the convict than his life in freedom.

I don't agree in these 2 points.

Concerning the first, and since this is a moral principle of religious origin, I should remind you that if you accept this, you should know that it was "deroged" by Jesus when he said "give the other cheak". In other words, paying back with the same coin only generates more damage and suffering. I believe that under no point of view that old principle should still be aplied. Also, there's a diference between justice and pure vengeance. Vengeace is not something that should be persuid.

Conserning the second point, in MOST cases (and thats in most of the countries in the world) prisons are living hells. Maybe in the USA or some Europe is not like that (and I bet that there are even there), but in the rest of the world at least they usually are. I don't think that there's anyone who in his sane mind would like to go inside.

Finally (forgot to quote), I find hard to believe death penalty to be more expensive than sustaining a person for 40 years... and even if that were to be true, it can be solved soooo easy with a shot between the eyes.

[reminder]

Aww... starting an argument with me... how cute~
(don't feel offended by this)

Originally Posted by Titens

Concerning the first, and since this is a moral principle of religious origin, I should remind you that if you accept this, you should know that it was "deroged" by Jesus when he said "give the other cheak". In other words, paying back with the same coin only generates more damage and suffering. I believe that under no point of view that old principle should still be aplied. Also, there's a diference between justice and pure vengeance. Vengeace is not something that should be persuid.

As much as country is resposible for defending the rights of the murderer, it is equally responsible for defending rights of victim's relatives. Two things are important in the law system : punishment and compensation. In simple terms, you do something bad - you get punished, you hurt someone - you have to compensate. While the punishment part is OK (since government decides the form of it), current law system doesn't take death penalty as a matter which needs compensation. THAT is wrong. Tell me why taking a person from his family should not be considered as some kind of theft.

The fairest way of compensation is, as I mentioned, eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth. Anything less or more is unfair. Is it fair that after getting your arm cut off, you have to spend your whole life disabled while your attacker pays for his CRIME, but not for the damage he's done? If you were able to sew your arm and use it afterwards, he would still get the same sentence (at least in my country). THAT is not fair. The fairest way to be cut his arm off as well AND get him a sentence for disabling you. As inhuman as it sounds, it is FAIR. And, as I mentioned, the goverment has responsibilities for all of it's people, so it should be as fair as possible to everyone.

Families of the victims SHOULD have a right to request capital punishment. Though, they usually don't have it - because government protects some members of society more than others.

Now, there is an argument that some victims' families don't want to kill the murderer. So, it's easy - they would not use their right to request DS, and the murderer would have to answer for his crime only (getting sentence for life). But, it would only be fair to allow them to request DS as a form of compensation. So, partially that's a yes for DS.

Originally Posted by Titens

Conserning the second point, in MOST cases (and thats in most of the countries in the world) prisons are living hells. Maybe in the USA or some Europe is not like that (and I bet that there are even there), but in the rest of the world at least they usually are. I don't think that there's anyone who in his sane mind would like to go inside.

Still, our "humanic" governments are working on improvements of the prisons. Many countries have prisons as living hells only because their law system is "behind". Prison SHOULD NOT be a living hell, it's just not the purpose of "correctional facilities" (aka prisons), and ony because of lack of funding prisons ARE hell. So, that's a question on halt untill governments get enough money to improve the prisons, not the question of the moral side (they are criminals, therefore they should suffer). While your opinion is currently acceptable, the changes of economic situation may change this point at any time. Then, there will be a bigger problem....

Originally Posted by Titens

Finally (forgot to quote), I find hard to believe death penalty to be more expensive than sustaining a person for 40 years... and even if that were to be true, it can be solved soooo easy with a shot between the eyes.

You are a little bit wrong about that. it's not the process of killing that's expensive, the process of proving that someone deserves DS is expensive. After all, it's the worst punisment possible, therefore a thorough investigation is needed. And that costs a lot.

[dragoncrusher]

On one side I am for it. I believe that anyone who would intentionally take the life of another human being, without justification, has forfited there right to live as well.

On the other hand I am against the thought of killing an innocent man because our lovely court system which is oh so flawless *Takes pay off for saying such and puts it in pocket* has decided that the man is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's not enough proof for me to take a mans life.

This is the comprimise that I have come up with for my own edification.

We keep Capitol Punishment, but we only enact it when there is absolute proof, such as Irrefutable DNA Evidence linking the defendant to the crime, or witnesses who can positivly ID him as the killer, and even this can be dismissed if the defendant can prove without a doubt that when he killed the person, that he either did it in self defense, or in the defense of another.

So as you can see, with my idea, we would lessen the amount of people who recive Capitol Punishment, while still keeping it and ensuring that under normal circumstances only those who are truely diserving of it would recive it.


And I'll get this out of the way before it's even brought up that it's inhumane to kill a man and that a life sentance is better, or cheeper or whatever.
A) The Murder should have thought about that before he Killed someone.
B) It is no more expensive to execute someone than it is to keep them in for life without Parol because all the Retrials that are guarenteed as rights to the accused who is on Death Row are allowed to a person who is in for life without Parol, so the only extra cash we're spending is to throw the fucking switch or inject them...and even that can be saved if we bring back the good old fireing squad and lynching cause hell, a bullet only costs 10 cents, and what's a good yard of rope go for these days cause you can reuse that.

One problem with it is that some people maybe prove innocent years after a sentence. If they're dead, well, your fucked.

But with the death sentence, can you really prove that it'll keep people from committing certain crimes? Most of the serious crimes are committed by temporary insanity, isn't it? Like you kill your wife because she's cheating on you and you just found out; or your killing the guy who attacked you with a knife or something stupid. It's not like people are going around willy-nilly on killing sprees (except those who are) but first go, "Oh, wait. A death penalty. I could die, I better not." instead of "Oh, wait. Life in jail. I could... ... ... people will say mean things about me in the newspaper!"

Really, the punishment for crimes isn't really an anti-incentive for a lot of people to not commit crimes. People do drugs the world over and cry to God when they get caught. People STILL drink and drive. If it wasn't illegal, more people would be killed, even more would feel like shit for doing it.

The real motivation for people to not do things illegal is for those people to "pay the ultimate consequences" by either becoming terrible burdened by their sins (becoming paralyzed or losing limbs or something and they become totally FUCKED) or by doing the same thing to someone else and feeling a conscious feeling of guilt about it that has the same consequences minus being able to work, live and be normal.

You maybe thinking something like; A pedophile rapes a kid, goes to jail for 40 years and comes out. He's still a pedophile. Jail doesn't change anything. It only keeps him away from non-criminals for those 40 years. When he comes out, does he really feel less likely to commit the same crimes?
All the same, you could just kill them (like everyone wants to). But what if you found out the kid lied just to get him in trouble?
That kid just did something that ended in death of another human being. Well, that kid should be killed for lying or spend the rest of his life in jail.
But that doesn't really change the world. Nobody learns a lesson from someone else's mistake... ever.
Except maybe; I slept with (specific name) and got AIDS. The lesson learned is use a condom when you sleep with that person. You won't suddenly have 50 people who gained an IQ point and then will always use a condom for the rest of their lives. It won't happen.

In reality, the 'justice system' is pretty flawed to the point where good people tell the truth and get punished more severely then the bad people who lie in the same system.

They say 'justice is blind' in the sense that there's no prejudice based on skin color or anything like that. But the most severe court rooms have like 12 perfectly seeing capable individuals who got to get out of their high paying minimum wage jobs to listen to other peoples problems, not be able to have TV or internet or anything FUN get paid a lot less and then you ask them, "What kind of punishment should this guy have?"

Most people can't even deal with what they do have, and they flip out when they lose it. Death sentence? There's no one intelligent enough and all-knowing who should be deciding the fate of an individual. Except maybe God, and he's been killing off people all our lives.

The problem with capital punishment is that it either allows for appeals, and it is therefore extremely expensive and time-consuming for courts, or it does not allow for appeals (after the guy does his sentence, he's kinda too dead to appeal, right?), and it is therefore unjust. Those are the two options for inmates sentenced to death - either they have a good lawyer willing to do death row appeals, which often take several years, after which the attorneys often burn out, or they don't, and they're screwed. Either way, it's no good.

What does the death penalty accomplish anyway? The idea is probably to save money by saving prison space, etc., but death sentences end up more expensive than life imprisonment. It doesn't really make sense. As stated above, it either accomplishes its objective, but bars justice, or it does not, and it goes completely against its purpose.

As for the "courts" deciding that someone murdered someone else, do remember that neither the attorneys nor the judges determine who is guilty of what. Judges only determine what the charges are against the defendant and what kind of evidence is allowed. It's the jury that decides who's guilty. The attorneys both have some sway in who is in the jury, but they can't hand pick jurors from the batch they get. They can only remove a certain number of people from that batch without cause. Jurors can be removed for cause, usually predjudice (EX: racism). Typically, the judge takes care of that first. Aside from that, the jury decides who's guilty of what. The decision that these 12 private citizens make has nothing to do with the court system, really, unless the court misinforms the jury about reasonable doubt, or if corrupt officials screw with the evidence or witnesses (and I doubt anyone here would argue that that's common). I don't understand why people always blame cops or courts for putting people away, when it's not up to them at all. It's your fault for not reporting for jury duty. People don't seem to realize how important it is. There's a saying I hear about this often: defendants get judged by the 12 people to dumb to come up with an excuse to get out of jury duty. It doesn't have to be that way, and it shouldn't be. Do your part, and quit bitching about the court system already.

(ps, i talk to myself, plus i had this argument in another site :))

[DDv]

Originally Posted by dragoncrusher

Judges only determine what the charges are against the defendant and what kind of evidence is allowed.

This is true in the USA, but not in (most countries of) Europe.

The thing is every one of You think within the boundaries of an idealistic world. Which isn't a problem at all, since we're not here to solve this whole thing, but simply discuss it.

I'll be really short. I won't repeat the pros/cons and moral dilemmas already stated.

In my opinion, whether it's moral or not isn't a question. We need an effective way to solve the problems criminals are involved with. Death sentence can be very effective if used properly. By proper I mean excessive.

Yes, I mean that. The government shouldn't care more about innocents being sentenced to death than those who are jailed only. Just a normal investigation would be fine. No extra expenses, no recidivists, much less crime. Innocents would die, yes, but that's a given with this kind of system. And knowing that You're certainly dead if You're caught would make criminals think twice before acting.

Actually this system works. Think of the Soviet Union or Hitler's Germany. People were scared like hell, but criminal activity was almost at zero. The streets were more safe than nowadays. With some modifications the (almost) same system could be introduced and it would be much more effective than the current one. Without the ideology of course.

I know this is cruel and extreme, but still it's effective and this is the keyword. Society should be built on logic and not emotions.



(I have rather extreme views of almost anything and don't posess the usual human morals. You'll get used to it in time.)

[ErgoProxy]

Originally Posted by reminder

You are a little bit wrong about that. it's not the process of killing that's expensive, the process of proving that someone deserves DS is expensive. After all, it's the worst punisment possible, therefore a thorough investigation is needed. And that costs a lot.

Absolutely right ... and in addition they can let them do some work > all expenses covered + in some cases a lot of money is gained with that.

^ And this is my opinion -why should anyone kill the f... (those who really deserve it)
when you can use them as tools!

But some deeds should be punished by DEATH PENALTY (raping, killing, helpless human) -no mercy for those who don't show mercy to those who can't defend themselves AND IF the relatives don't insist on that punishment.

That's only my common opinion to this theme...

Spoiler!

(Personal concernment >> REVENGE!!! Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. *applied
to the culprit only)

Edit:

Originally Posted by DDv

I know this is cruel and extreme, but still it's effective and this is the keyword. Society should be built on logic and not emotions.

That’s true as long as you’re not personally concerned...