Some people support the death penalty because it is the ultimate deterrent, yet it would seem to not matter since more people continue to do the obscene things required to warrant the death penalty. However, when I think about it, it doesn't even make sense as a deterrent. The reason why I support the death penalty is because it is the only way to stop someone (permanently) who has grown to dangerous for any society, and will only drain public funds which are spent better on pretty much anything. What do you think?
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Death Penalty
- Thread starter androza
- Start date
- Status
Akira
Smash Apprentice
Fact: Thanks to the appeals system, it costs more to kill a prisoner, than to imprison him for the rest of his life. So, as to being efficent, funds are better spent on imprisonment.
A man kills a man, and he is a criminal.
A group of men kill that man, and they are justified?
A man kills a man, and he is a criminal.
A group of men kill that man, and they are justified?
Legolas
Smash Lord
They should invent the ability to do a mind erase that may solve the death penalty.
Okay, I edited this post once and it didnt work, so I'll try it again.
If a prisoner is so violent and depraved that they earned the death penalty, then why should they be allowed to live? They simply take up space, are bored, and pose a threat to fellow prisoners and guards. And what if they escape? It is the duty of a people to protect itself, and if executions are necessary, so be it.
[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: androza ]</p>
If a prisoner is so violent and depraved that they earned the death penalty, then why should they be allowed to live? They simply take up space, are bored, and pose a threat to fellow prisoners and guards. And what if they escape? It is the duty of a people to protect itself, and if executions are necessary, so be it.
[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: androza ]</p>
And now to refute the famous "If murder is immoral, then why is it acceptable for us to murder in the name of the state?" argument.
This argument is inherently stupid, if you believe in the concept of punishment.
It can also be worded "If kidnapping and slavery are immoral, then why is it acceptable for us to do them in the name of the state?" (Jail time)
or
"If robbery is wrong, then why is it ok for the government to rob lawbreakers?" (fine)
So you see, unless you are opposed to all forms of criminal punishment, then this argument simply does not work. And if you are opposed to punishment for crimes...well then I'll just cede the argument...then kill you. Nobody would stop me...
-B
This argument is inherently stupid, if you believe in the concept of punishment.
It can also be worded "If kidnapping and slavery are immoral, then why is it acceptable for us to do them in the name of the state?" (Jail time)
or
"If robbery is wrong, then why is it ok for the government to rob lawbreakers?" (fine)
So you see, unless you are opposed to all forms of criminal punishment, then this argument simply does not work. And if you are opposed to punishment for crimes...well then I'll just cede the argument...then kill you. Nobody would stop me...
-B
Also, the fact that it costs so much is because of the laws at the time. If the nation put forth an effort to include capital punishment as a more useful tool, the streamline of the apeals procces would have to be paramount as well. After all, times change, and we should too.
Aside from its utter uselessness as a deterrent, aside from the high possibility of miscarriages of justice, aside from the fact that it is (In America at any rate.) only ever applied to people who couldn't afford a good lawyer, and aside from the fact that it makes an excellent tool of opression, I'm against the death penalty in theory as well as practice.
B's argument makes sense at face value, logically, but fails to take into account that we do not actually practice "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Deprivation of liberty is the most humane punishment we have yet devised. Thus we do not torture the torturer, we do not **** the rapist, and most people would balk at the idea of doing so. Taking the life of a murderer is a similarly disproportionate punishment.
Additionally, the death penalty serves no useful purpose. Community service, fines and imprisonment do (Although I guess the latter depends on the prison system, this is theoretical and ethical at this point, the practical side having been addressed at the top.) If a killer can be rehabilitated and re-integrated into society after a suitable punishment then I'm all for that.
Finally, a small conundrum: Given the punishment involved, the moral condemnation and the loathing it inspires, the trauma it could cause the killer eventually, and most importantly the abhorrence of the act itself, you must be insane to commit a murder. You cannot be put on trial if you are insane.
B's argument makes sense at face value, logically, but fails to take into account that we do not actually practice "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." Deprivation of liberty is the most humane punishment we have yet devised. Thus we do not torture the torturer, we do not **** the rapist, and most people would balk at the idea of doing so. Taking the life of a murderer is a similarly disproportionate punishment.
Additionally, the death penalty serves no useful purpose. Community service, fines and imprisonment do (Although I guess the latter depends on the prison system, this is theoretical and ethical at this point, the practical side having been addressed at the top.) If a killer can be rehabilitated and re-integrated into society after a suitable punishment then I'm all for that.
Finally, a small conundrum: Given the punishment involved, the moral condemnation and the loathing it inspires, the trauma it could cause the killer eventually, and most importantly the abhorrence of the act itself, you must be insane to commit a murder. You cannot be put on trial if you are insane.
Thats where I disagree. Insanity is in no way an object that can remove cuplability. And at any rate, considering what you have to do to get it (pre-mediated cop killing, serial killing, etc) do those people truly deserve to live after what they did?
I think the death penalty should be around...but it should be handled differently. When a person is a charged with whatever crime and is punished by death, they should just be taken around the back corner and shot. Then, people wouldn't be on death row for insane amounts of time. The prison population would decrease, tax payers wouldn't have to pay as much, and life would be easier all around.
Really long posts. Not exactly a good thing.
You throw out the concept of rehab, but I would like to bring it back. The concept behind imprisonment is to rehabilitate or punish someone for a crime. The punishment part has been removed, I don’t know how or when, but I do know why. It has become inhumane to punish someone. Again, don’t know how or why this concept happened. That leaves us with the singular goal of rehabilitation. However, not everyone can be rehabilitated.
That leaves us with a problem. People do not want to do what should be done; punish the individual for his crime. And not everyone can be rehabilitated.
You said that, “the death penalty is endemic in the hypocrisy and decay of any societyâ€, however you do not explain why. I would like to point out that if someone were to commit a crime against me, I would want them punished. Rehabilitation is a concept that cannot be realized without considerable capita. Although it would be nice to rehabilitate someone so that they can no longer commit the crime (mind control), it would be unconstitutional to do so. The only other option is punishment. I would like the person punished in the most efficient way possible, fitting the crime committed. If a person were to commit murder, quick and painless, they should die quick and painless. However, if they slowly tortured the individual for a lengthy period of time before letting them slowly die, a similar punishment should be made. In this case torture. I don’t care what you say about the individual’s rights, they are in direct conflict with my rights, and in committing a crime he gives up those rights.
Yes, I condone torture as a punishment, and believe that people are not turned into prisoners to get a free ride in jail and all the butt sex they want. I recently read a report about how one of the major engineering problems in a prison was trying to implement ice cream machines for the prisoners. Do you follow? Although some agree that their removal of liberty is punishment enough, getting prime steak and ice cream seems to be an acceptable trade-off. Most people can only afford this lifestyle through a life of crime.
If you can catch my drift, people need to be punished, not catered to. They should be tortured, or killed, as quickly and efficiently as possible. If they are a threat to society and will continue to be, then they should be removed from society as efficiently as possible. This would fix many of our prison problems in general IE: overcrowding of prisons. And although you don’t think that it is a deterrent, would you commit **** if you knew you would be tortured for a week if you did so? This might not stop serial killers, who are psycho in the first place, it would stop most carrier criminals who don’t mind having bacon and eggs in the morning, and have to fight or buy off the local dykes in prison.
Ted Bundy being the exception not the rule? In almost all capital murder cases where the punishment is death, the accused always has a really good lawyer. Most try to get publicity, while others actually care (about the money). The point is that anybody who might die as a result of the trial is given, if not hires, a more than competent lawyer.
Have fun with yet another long post.
You throw out the concept of rehab, but I would like to bring it back. The concept behind imprisonment is to rehabilitate or punish someone for a crime. The punishment part has been removed, I don’t know how or when, but I do know why. It has become inhumane to punish someone. Again, don’t know how or why this concept happened. That leaves us with the singular goal of rehabilitation. However, not everyone can be rehabilitated.
That leaves us with a problem. People do not want to do what should be done; punish the individual for his crime. And not everyone can be rehabilitated.
You said that, “the death penalty is endemic in the hypocrisy and decay of any societyâ€, however you do not explain why. I would like to point out that if someone were to commit a crime against me, I would want them punished. Rehabilitation is a concept that cannot be realized without considerable capita. Although it would be nice to rehabilitate someone so that they can no longer commit the crime (mind control), it would be unconstitutional to do so. The only other option is punishment. I would like the person punished in the most efficient way possible, fitting the crime committed. If a person were to commit murder, quick and painless, they should die quick and painless. However, if they slowly tortured the individual for a lengthy period of time before letting them slowly die, a similar punishment should be made. In this case torture. I don’t care what you say about the individual’s rights, they are in direct conflict with my rights, and in committing a crime he gives up those rights.
Yes, I condone torture as a punishment, and believe that people are not turned into prisoners to get a free ride in jail and all the butt sex they want. I recently read a report about how one of the major engineering problems in a prison was trying to implement ice cream machines for the prisoners. Do you follow? Although some agree that their removal of liberty is punishment enough, getting prime steak and ice cream seems to be an acceptable trade-off. Most people can only afford this lifestyle through a life of crime.
If you can catch my drift, people need to be punished, not catered to. They should be tortured, or killed, as quickly and efficiently as possible. If they are a threat to society and will continue to be, then they should be removed from society as efficiently as possible. This would fix many of our prison problems in general IE: overcrowding of prisons. And although you don’t think that it is a deterrent, would you commit **** if you knew you would be tortured for a week if you did so? This might not stop serial killers, who are psycho in the first place, it would stop most carrier criminals who don’t mind having bacon and eggs in the morning, and have to fight or buy off the local dykes in prison.
Ted Bundy being the exception not the rule? In almost all capital murder cases where the punishment is death, the accused always has a really good lawyer. Most try to get publicity, while others actually care (about the money). The point is that anybody who might die as a result of the trial is given, if not hires, a more than competent lawyer.
Have fun with yet another long post.
Choronis
Smash Lord
instead of arguing, lets vote.
all in favour of death penalty?
all opposed?
all in favour of death penalty?
all opposed?
How will that fix anything?
"Yes, I condone torture as a punishment."
No long posts, I think that says it all.
No long posts, I think that says it all.
Is your position too weak? Or is your heart too weak? Can you not give me any reason to think otherwise? Europeans, hah!
As far as I'm concerned, by condoning torture you are no better than Stalin. I feel sick. I shouldn't need to give you any reason to think otherwise, I was relying on that "human decency" thing.
Human decency? By what definition, yours? The European nations have a different idea of humane than Africa, and Africa has a different idea than America. There is no singular definition of "human decency." It may be decent to give a helping hand whenever possible, or it might have been decent that I didn't just kill you for being a bum. In other words, your argument does not hold water.
- Status