Capital punishment
-
Nope. They hate ya. Which, as far as I know, is due to the US's support to Israel. I'm no fan of terrorist attacks, or of any sort of violence for that matter, but I think there's a firm link between the US's foreign politics and, say, 9/11. I sincerely hope the next American president realises you cannot tread on sore toes without there being some retribution (that's a word, right?).
-
@unknownuser said:
Well if you believe what Bush says then we aren't in a oil war. He calls it the war on terrorism... but I see where you're coming from! We spend money on all types of defense systems for this country... internet, missile defense, security at airports, border patrol, etc...
Why you ask? The middle east hates us! They'll do anything they can to bring us down... (or do I have this backwards?)
I'm sorry, but you'r a billions miles from thinking in a civilisated world.
Outside of USA of course.
-
@remus said:
Ross, this is starting to look very much like the conversation i had with bubba at the start of this thread.
Not really. Bubba is pro-death penalty. I am not. I think the real issue is does society have the right to decide to kill a citizen for breaking society's rules? It should not be an issue of cost (as in theory killing someone can cost almost nothing if they'd just do it).
I do not trust the justice system to get it right. As a designer of jails, police stations, and courthouses I know first hand the people involved do want to get it right but that it isn't easy. The best of intentions can still result in mis-justice. As our system has flaws it seems unreasonable to expect it to work flawlessly.
Any of us can be wrongly convicted of murder. While the chances are very slim it most definitely can happen. Wrong place + wrong time circumstances can lead to a strong case that could tie one of us to a murder. This is probably more likely to happen to any of us than winning the lottery.
-
@unknownuser said:
Nope. They hate ya. Which, as far as I know, is due to the US's support to Israel. I'm no fan of terrorist attacks, or of any sort of violence for that matter, but I think there's a firm link between the US's foreign politics and, say, 9/11. I sincerely hope the next American president realises you cannot tread on sore toes without there being some retribution (that's a word, right?).
Stinkie, do you think 911 was the fault of George W Bush's foreign policy?
-
("the US's foreign politics" is certainly one of the big reasons given by those who done the doing...not saying I do or don't believe such, BTW.)
On topic: I'm for bringing back the stock...let's say 4 or 5 hours a day, after a 10 hour shift working off some of the debt to the victim's family, then chained to a cot (so they can't hurt each other) in an abandoned warehouse somewhere with the rest of the scum.
Of course we can't use the town square anymore, downtown revitalization and all: so how about two or three stocks in each of the McDonald's parking lots around town.
-
@bellwells said:
Stinkie, do you think 911 was the fault of George W Bush's foreign policy?
Not just his, regrettably. Remember that Sudanese pharmaceutical plant Clinton decided to bomb? Or the missiles that Bush Sr. had shot at the centre of Bagdad? (I was 13 or so, but I was shocked at hearing the reasoning.)
I think the perception of the US as a country that does exactly as it pleases, with no respect for international law or civilian lives, is severely p*ssing people off.
The sooner the US realises that "the others" aren't the agressors, the better. Should I add I'm not an America hater?
-
bad topic - dangerous field!
if you are ready to execute by yourself a death sentence and kill somebody you've never seen before, then capital punishment may have some sense for you
but, if you're unable to do so, how can you allow someone else to do it in your name?
it's like eating flesh or vegetables: have you ever killed a cow or a lamb puppy? a pig?
if not, how can you eat them?
If I had to kill my meat by myself, I would eat many more vegetables.
I'm not completely vegetarian an I never killed my lunch. I'm not coherent or perfect.
I'm not here to judge what you eatBut it's good to think and share your thoughts.
So thanks for this uncomfortable thread.my 2 eurocents
/matteo -
I think there are truly evil people in the world who are either ammoral, seeing no problem with killing others, or who are sadist that take pleasure in otrturing others. People such as Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Mengele, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gracy Jr., or the Zodiac Killer. I have no problem with such people receiving the ultimate punichment. But I do think the death sentence is handed out far too liberally in this country.
-
Good point daniel, although i suppose the problem then is that it is very hard to draw the line between people who deserve the death peenalty and those that dont.
-
Remus, I think the death penalty should be limited to those where there is irrefutable proof of guilt, such as those I named (except the Zodiac, as they still do not know his identity). I also think trial by jury is important.
-
@unknownuser said:
@bellwells said:
Stinkie, do you think 911 was the fault of George W Bush's foreign policy?
Not just his, regrettably. Remember that Sudanese pharmaceutical plant Clinton decided to bomb? Or the missiles that Bush Sr. had shot at the centre of Bagdad? (I was 13 or so, but I was shocked at hearing the reasoning.)
I think the perception of the US as a country that does exactly as it pleases, with no respect for international law or civilian lives, is severely p*ssing people off.
The sooner the US realises that "the others" aren't the agressors, the better. Should I add I'm not an America hater?
There is no question that the US does more good than harm. Just look at the level of our foreign aid. Who's first on site when there's a tsunami in Indonesia or any other disaster? I don't sense the same level of disdain for those who actually have "no respect for international law or civilian life", ie. radical Islamists, Robert Mugabe, the Mujahadeen in the Sudan, etc, etc, etc.
Edit: Sorry about continuing the off-topic nature of this subject.
-
@bellwells said:
There is no question that the US does more good than harm. Just look at the level of our foreign aid. Who's first on site when there's a tsunami in Indonesia or any other disaster?
So? I'm sorry, but surely you're not implying we should all go "oh, please, help yourselves, blow something up" because of the level of the US's foreign aid?
@bellwells said:
I don't sense the same level of disdain for those who actually have "no respect for international law or civilian life", ie. radical Islamists, Robert Mugabe, the Mujahadeen in the Sudan, etc, etc, etc.
Sigh. Sorry. I forgot to mention all the other baddies. That "actually" is funny.
-
@unknownuser said:
So? I'm sorry, but surely you're not implying we should all go "oh, please, help yourselves, blow something up" because of the level of the US's foreign aid?
No but it's a bit hypocritical when the U.S. and the UK trained those people to blow stuff up and supplied them with arms only a decade or so ago.
Back on topic, I think you lead by example, if "an eye for an eye" is the law then we are no better than the taliban.
-
@unknownuser said:
Back on topic, I think you lead by example, if "an eye for an eye" is the law then we are no better than the taliban.
Yup!
@bellwells said:
I know how fashionable it is for Europeans, especially, to turn their enlightened nose up at us. I can assure you that most of us here don't care. You will think that as arrogant, I know.
Right!
-
@unknownuser said:
@bellwells said:
There is no question that the US does more good than harm. Just look at the level of our foreign aid. Who's first on site when there's a tsunami in Indonesia or any other disaster?
So? I'm sorry, but surely you're not implying we should all go "oh, please, help yourselves, blow something up" because of the level of the US's foreign aid?
@bellwells said:
I don't sense the same level of disdain for those who actually have "no respect for international law or civilian life", ie. radical Islamists, Robert Mugabe, the Mujahadeen in the Sudan, etc, etc, etc.
Sigh. Sorry. I forgot to mention all the other baddies. That "actually" is funny.
I know how fashionable it is for some Europeans to turn their enlightened nose up at us. I can assure you that most of us here don't care. Don't take this as arrogant, take it as fact.
Edit: I did alter some wording to more accurately reflect my sentiment.
-
@bellwells said:
I know how fashionable it is for some Europeans to turn their enlightened nose up at us. I can assure you that most of us here don't care. Don't take this as arrogant, take it as fact.
Not "most" nor a "fact" in my book!Back on track:
Is there no sentiment toward less "compassionate" incarcaration...short of the death penalty? I'm kinda serious about the stock...and dead serious about compensation!
-
@remus said:
Mr s, i believe your argument is flawed.
In the situations you describe there is a risk of death, although in all these situations the benefits far outway the risks.
Capital punishment on the other hand cant really be argued to provide any measurable benefit to society. What difference does it make wether someone who has truly commited a crime is in prison for the rest of their life or dead? There are only disadvantages, in that innocent people may be wrongly killed.
You have demonstrated that my argument is not flawed.
Your response is painfully flawed.Capital punishment is exactly the same as all the other examples I quoted.
It is something that could possibly lead to the loss of innocent lives.
However, driving cars, for example, will lead to the loss of many thousands of innocent lives every year.
Most of us accept this as a price to be paid, albeit reluctantly, because of the many other advantages cars provide us with. Most of us are able to accept these deaths because they are usually reported to us very briefly on the news. We don't really have a chance to identify with them as fellow human beings. They are just statistics. In other words, we are prepared to accept this loss of innocent life because the benefits overall to society outweighs the disadvantages. We don't feel comfortable admitting it, but we have all made and accept this judgement call.Here in the UK a life sentence can mean 15 years. Often with "good behavour" taken in to account they can be released after as little as 8 years. They, unlike their victims, get to enjoy the rest of their lives.
That, to me, to quote a previous poster is immoral.Capital punishment does provide measurable benefits to society.
It provides justice (not revenge, before the liberal types start wailing) to the victims loved ones.
In a civilised society the state should have as its first duty to provide this justice to its citizens.
When the state fails to provide this justice then lynch mobs or vigilantes are the result.
It also serves as an example to those who would consider killing others. Most criminal types weigh up the pros and cons of their crimes. Put simply, is it worth commiting the crime and paying the price if caught?
It will not deter all of them, but I believe it deters very many.
Finally, and most importantly, if nothing else it ensures that the perpetrator cannot repeat their crimes.Regards
Mr S -
"Compensation", that sounds good. We'd be talking forced labour then? Acceptable to me, if organised in a humane manner.
Of course, not all work is suitable. We don't want Dennis Rader calling people to sell 'em magazine subscriptions.
In the case of people like Rader, I'm not opposed to life long solitary confinement. Though I must add that's just my sentiment speaking.
@mr s said:
When the state fails to provide this justice then lynch mobs or vigilantes are the result.
Really?
There's no death penalty in Belgium, but I have yet to see my first lynch mob. -
I don't want to get involved into a deep discussion, but as I think of myself being a caring person, I just can't justify a death penalty.
The strange thing is that the US is both the land of Christian fanaticism as the land of death penalties.
I just can't seem to remember the bible stating 'returning the favor' (=kiliing the killer) was a good thing. Quite the opposite actually.
Hey, but I am a humanist, so what do I know?
-
The strange thing when talking about death penalty is, that as long as people debate this on a distant level, they are oohhh so human and can't justify death penalty etc... etc...
However, most people - especially people who have children - would be the executioner, if someone did something very, very bad to their closest family/children...
Myself included...
Advertisement