dothackers.net

I know I should probably have put this in the religous-politics topic, but I wanted to have a debate about just this topic. I'm writing a research paper about it and having an actual debate about it with people would really help out.

Please no spamming and being all flaimming about it.
When posting info to support your view, please post a link or name of you referance.

So, Death Penalty or 'Capital Punishment'. What is your view on it?

Well, there are a great many things people should die for, but I'm pretty opposed to capital punishment.

Stealing a car is pretty bad. Not only did the criminal take something that's really expensive, their making someone's life dramatically harder. That's intent to ruin someone's life, and its a high dollar crime. If they can't pay for all the damage, in all uses of the word, then they should get the death penalty.

Murder of course, but mainly if its intentional. Accidental should be looked at a little more closely. Drunk driving and getting into an accident that kills people is willfully endangering the lives of other motorists, so I'd agree on that being Murder. But drunk driving should still be considered a much harsher crime, I know what it's like since I've done it once and realize just how bad that can be. Didn't get into an accident or anything, but driving only a half mile like that was enough to make me never wanna do it again.

Kidnapping, for ton's of reasons.

Bank robbery, while rare in this day and age, still happens and effects too many people if the bank doesn't insure their money, for it to be considered a light crime.

Arson. Its not even a reckless crime, its intent do destroy property and possibly kill people. Worse drunk driving or stealing a car.

I'd say Rape, but at the same time I have friends that were falsely accused of rape, were found guilty and had to serve time for it.
Pedophilia on the other hand, I don't care if people call it a disease or not, if they actually commit an act on a child, they should die. I don't give a **** if they have all kinds of crap on their computer, that's what they do to try and "calm the waters" so to speak so they don't act out. In a way its therapeutic. Don't like that those kinds of pictures exist in the first place though, because that means someone DID do something to a child.

Capital punishment such as the Death Penalty has been an issue recently. I think it's mostly because of the drugs that are used in it. George Carlin commented in the past about the fact that they still use the antibacterial wipe to keep them from dying from anything like an infection.

I believe that it really is pointless. Considering that people die in war just as easily.

Capital Punishment was death for any crime, wasn't it?

I'm for the death penalty. I just wish they had better choices then 'Lethal Injection'. Like allowing you the choice (within reason) of how to die. I, myself, would like to jump from a plane without a parachute if I had to receive the death penalty.

nekoryuuha wrote:I'm for the death penalty. I just wish they had better choices then 'Lethal Injection'. Like allowing you the choice (within reason) of how to die. I, myself, would like to jump from a plane without a parachute if I had to receive the death penalty.

I'm also for the death penalty. I read somewhere about them being able to choose if they've been on death row longer than when the did the switch, but I'm not really sure. I would choose the electric chair.

Erranty wrote:Capital Punishment was death for any crime, wasn't it?

Not any crime, just serious ones.

I'm against the Death Penalty. I don't believe its right for person to take another person's life under any circumstances. This is just to say.

Haseo{Terror of Death} wrote:

Erranty wrote:Capital Punishment was death for any crime, wasn't it?

Not any crime, just serious ones.

I'm against the Death Penalty. I don't believe its right for person to take another person's life under any circumstances. This is just to say.

What about protecting yourself or someone you love? I'd rather kill them without having to deal with consequences in that case.

I really have no definitive side on the matter. One of the beliefs that I have in life is that I should always look at every situation from different views so I can fully understand what is going on, but that can make picking certain sides very hard. I believe the answer is really more on a case by case basis, just as for most other situations, because every person and event is different and not one saying is capable of handling every single circumstance.

Many people are for it because of the idea of retribution and actively enforcing the ancient idea of karma: that when you perform any act upon someone else, you rightfully should experience the same act on yourself. If someone deliberately kills another, for things to be fair the person who committed the crime should have the same fate. But isn't the idea behind prison that anyone who has made a mistake is able to learn from their past and make up for what they have done, to eventually leave and live a happy peaceful life with others? By killing that person, don't we deprive them of that chance to learn and change? We could say that they will never change due to the type of crime they committed, but does that mean all of those people who we spend so much money to keep imprisoned should change and learn at some point in their lives? They could very well never change, and when they are released commit the same crime again and again until they die, soaking up more of people's money to keep them alive as they sit in a cell. While at the same time someone who has murdered another may realize the grave mistake done and wishes to make up for it as long as they live, but are never given to chance because they are killed. Is it really right to kill the man who wishes to better the world and has a new perspective because of what he has done and then let the man who will only steal his whole life back out onto the streets again and again?

Another question is, by taking another life does that make us any better than the murderers? Yes, we say that we are doing it for the better of society and to help the innocents, but many who commit murders also believe they are doing the right thing. When looking at wars, while one side may have more darker means to carry out their goals, many times they believe what they are doing is right. Yes, Hitler has wronged many people and I do not agree with his views, but in the end he did not believe what he was doing was bad. What he believed was that he was helping the entire human race reach his potential by removing those who would only hamper it and harm its innocents. By killing those who have murdered, aren't we going under the same basic idea? What's not to say that our views are not the ones that are wrong, and it is the murderers' views that are correct? It may be one man against many, but while many people were tricked into following Hitler, many more still followed his ideas willingly, so just because there are more people that agree this way doesn't make it automatically right.

But, going back to something said before, the problem with keeping these people alive is that they may never learn and change. Much of the time, the average person is stubborn and by the time they are adults they become very closed off to new ideas and learning new ways. So is it right to keep so many of these people alive when only one in a thousand may be willing to improve and help society? The help that that one person may give to society might be completely trivialized by all the others we have to put effort into keeping locked up and keeping silence. It might be better just to let that one slip by just so we can get rid of the others and save a lot of time and effort. But would it really be fair to that one man who would have changed?

I bet this has confused almost anyone who read this, but I will repeat: I am not choosing sides. I am not trying to hide what I believe in simply because there is nothing to hide. I have chosen any side, and I don't think I will even be capable of doing so. I mean, just look at what I wrote here.

Hybrid wrote: Another question is, by taking another life does that make us any better than the murderers? Yes, we say that we are doing it for the better of society and to help the innocents, but many who commit murders also believe they are doing the right thing. When looking at wars, while one side may have more darker means to carry out their goals, many times they believe what they are doing is right. Yes, Hitler has wronged many people and I do not agree with his views, but in the end he did not believe what he was doing was bad. What he believed was that he was helping the entire human race reach his potential by removing those who would only hamper it and harm its innocents. By killing those who have murdered, aren't we going under the same basic idea? What's not to say that our views are not the ones that are wrong, and it is the murderers' views that are correct? It may be one man against many, but while many people were tricked into following Hitler, many more still followed his ideas willingly, so just because there are more people that agree this way doesn't make it automatically right.

Well, Hitler was killing people based on race, because he thought they would do something that'd cause problems for someone else.
The other way kills individuals because they've already committed a crime, and new the consequences. I'd say that's a pretty clear difference.

And I repeat again: I never picked any sides, and I NEVER EVER stated any of my personal opinions. I only offered the different views on the subject so that people could examine them. Basically, take this as not being said by me but by an invisible voice which has no bias and just is trying to get you to think.

The death penalty is necessary in some countries and I think it ought to be used more often, I dont care what the church says because its better off to kill them in the name of justice rather than let the victims suffer a painful and long experience of never getting justice.

However the expenses are heavy. If you look at US research, apparently putting an inmate on Death Row for the Death Penalty will cost more than having an inmate serve a Prison Term for life. But side-wise I'm not sure to classify it as inhuman or as righteousnesses as well.

azureeagle wrote:However the expenses are heavy. If you look at US research, apparently putting an inmate on Death Row for the Death Penalty will cost more than having an inmate serve a Prison Term for life. But side-wise I'm not sure to classify it as inhuman or as righteousnesses as well.

Death Row isn't really the right thing. It lets them sit there for 6-10 years in case evidence comes to light that shows their innocence, when it should really only be 3 years, and no time at all if the proof is undeniable (like footage of them doing the crime). As far as "humanity" and "righteousness" go, they weren't thinking of it when they committed the act, why should we? Sometimes it takes a cold, logical person to make truly hard decisions, and any sense of morality and ideals only gets in the way.

azureeagle wrote:However the expenses are heavy. If you look at US research, apparently putting an inmate on Death Row for the Death Penalty will cost more than having an inmate serve a Prison Term for life.

Well isn't that more of a problem with the procedure itself, and not the idea of whether it should be done? Given the fact that the procedure can be changed and the cost reduced, could this really be a valid argument for whether it should be done or not?

Erranty wrote:Sometimes it takes a cold, logical person to make truly hard decisions, and any sense of morality and ideals only gets in the way.

And yet isn't that sense of morality and ideals the reason we are forcing ourselves to make such a decision in the first place?

Hybrid wrote:

Erranty wrote:Sometimes it takes a cold, logical person to make truly hard decisions, and any sense of morality and ideals only gets in the way.

And yet isn't that sense of morality and ideals the reason we are forcing ourselves to make such a decision in the first place?

I've always though of it more as keeping ourselves from further harm. I mean, when you tell someone "If you do this very bad thing, we will kill you." and they do it anyway, isn't that the same as suicide by proxy? So technically the death penalty is murder, but assisted suicide. Or for a more to the point example, I don't really see it as being any different from putting down a rabid or vicious dog.

Erranty wrote:

Hybrid wrote:

Erranty wrote:Sometimes it takes a cold, logical person to make truly hard decisions, and any sense of morality and ideals only gets in the way.

And yet isn't that sense of morality and ideals the reason we are forcing ourselves to make such a decision in the first place?

I've always though of it more as keeping ourselves from further harm. I mean, when you tell someone "If you do this very bad thing, we will kill you." and they do it anyway, isn't that the same as suicide by proxy? So technically the death penalty is murder, but assisted suicide. Or for a more to the point example, I don't really see it as being any different from putting down a rabid or vicious dog.

The biggest problem is that argument makes it hard to decide what's more humane: Euthanasia or the Death Penalty. In all honesty, both subjects are a loaded gun. Right on par with the abortion argument.

HOWEVER, the death penalty itself is a problematic issue. It shouldn't have to exist, but it does because we use it to control people. In England being drawn and quartered was something people went out to see.

Helbaworshipper wrote:In England being drawn and quartered was something people went out to see.

And that didn't help British society to develop in any way whatsoever.
However, given how some people behave...