Standing the Test of Time

[Mindscatter]

I will try being optimistic and hoping that criminality will reduce to half in the next 50 years. The number of people doing illegal things sets up the punishments, you now:

- a lot of people doing a lot of bad things: stop the revolution, heavy punishments

- an average number of criminals: average punishments

- very low criminality: criminal acts are treated as odious and inhuman, so still heavy punishments

 

But if it won't reduce, we're fu*ked. Seriously, I really can't think of a viable solution for the crisis, it would simply be hell on Earth.

[spoiler=QUOTEFEST]

The human race will probably have wiped itself out in 20 years.

 

But if we were to survive I think that reintroducing the death penalty for murderers (for all the places that don't. With this new strict law crime levels should go down. And if that doesn't work big criminals should be sentenced to exile.

 

Studies have shown that the death penalty does not deter crime.

 

It's fair though. :P

Not really.

 

Somebody does an even greater crime to society than the other criminals' date=' so we spend more money on him? Money that will not A. mitigate his crime. B. Make that crime occur less often. or C. Rehabilitate him, since he's now dead.

 

In the end, we lose out.

 

All for what. Some silly sense of justice?

[/quote']

 

Money and moral justice can't be paired. If someone killed a member of your family that you cared very much about, you'd probably want that person to be dead too. It's a slap in the face to the family of the murdered person. Granted, we should find a more cost efficient and humane form of death penalty (nitrogen asphyxiation). Another problem (albeit an uncommon problem) people could face is the fact that organized crime can be committed from inside Prison.

 

It's quite possible that I would. But, being a family member, I'm hardly in a position to give an unbiased judgement.

 

Now, imagine if you were the family member of the killer. You'd likely NOT want him dead. Of course, you're equally biased in this situation, but the point is validated. We're causing more death and suffering, and for no tangible purpose.

 

Vengeance is NOT morality. Vengeance is a petty, animalistic, desire to destroy that which opposes us. It is not necessary, nor is is good, for vengeance to be implemented in a codified system of laws.

 

The fact of the matter is that my family member was/is a murderer, and is clearly in the wrong between the two. I, personally, don't usually support the death sentence. I mean some people deserve it (Jack the Ripper types)... but I pretty much agree with your last paragraph. All I'm saying is that until people can find out a sensible way to deal with serial killers, the Death Penalty is the easiest option to go with. And, honestly, Death is quite a bit more humane than imprisonment. At least as far as I can tell.

 

Why should Jack the Ripper be put to death? Imprisonment does the job just as well. If necessary, put him in solitary.

 

I think that itself is a sensible solution to deal with serial killers. They are still humans. Don't butcher them.

 

Certainly, in situations where keeping the prisoner alive is dangerous, I say put him to death without a doubt, but whenever we can avoid that penalty without endangering society,I think we should.

 

As for the humanity of the penalty, that is certainly disputable. There have been issues, of late, regarding the methods by which the penalty is applied, for one thing.

 

And for another, I don't think a single convict on death row would for a second say they preferred their status. We value our lives. So do criminals.

 

 

The death penalty doesn't really have anything to do with humanity or being fair to the criminal. It's just the principal of the entire thing. I mean, there are exceptions (people who are clearly mentally unstable) but the fact still remains; if a person has murdered, it's only justice for the murderer to face the same penalty. I agree with the fact that death isn't as human as it should be. Both the Lethal Injection and Electric Chair are incredibly painful. I think that the best way to sentence a person to death is through Nitrogen Asphyxiation (now outlawed if I remember correctly) seeing as the person can't even tell there's a lack of oxygen.

 

And I highly doubt a single murder victim wanted to be murdered. Why should the murderer be given mercy when he showed no mercy for the victim?

 

See, that's the inconsistency. How is it justice to put somebody to death. Like, ever? Nobody deserves to be killed. Granted, many of these people didn't give respect that right to life regarding their victims, but I don't see how that lets us do the same to them.

 

Bolded: why?

[Willieh]

[spoiler=QUOTEFEST]

The human race will probably have wiped itself out in 20 years.

 

But if we were to survive I think that reintroducing the death penalty for murderers (for all the places that don't. With this new strict law crime levels should go down. And if that doesn't work big criminals should be sentenced to exile.

 

Studies have shown that the death penalty does not deter crime.

 

It's fair though. :P

Not really.

 

Somebody does an even greater crime to society than the other criminals' date=' so we spend more money on him? Money that will not A. mitigate his crime. B. Make that crime occur less often. or C. Rehabilitate him, since he's now dead.

 

In the end, we lose out.

 

All for what. Some silly sense of justice?

[/quote']

 

Money and moral justice can't be paired. If someone killed a member of your family that you cared very much about, you'd probably want that person to be dead too. It's a slap in the face to the family of the murdered person. Granted, we should find a more cost efficient and humane form of death penalty (nitrogen asphyxiation). Another problem (albeit an uncommon problem) people could face is the fact that organized crime can be committed from inside Prison.

 

It's quite possible that I would. But, being a family member, I'm hardly in a position to give an unbiased judgement.

 

Now, imagine if you were the family member of the killer. You'd likely NOT want him dead. Of course, you're equally biased in this situation, but the point is validated. We're causing more death and suffering, and for no tangible purpose.

 

Vengeance is NOT morality. Vengeance is a petty, animalistic, desire to destroy that which opposes us. It is not necessary, nor is is good, for vengeance to be implemented in a codified system of laws.

 

The fact of the matter is that my family member was/is a murderer, and is clearly in the wrong between the two. I, personally, don't usually support the death sentence. I mean some people deserve it (Jack the Ripper types)... but I pretty much agree with your last paragraph. All I'm saying is that until people can find out a sensible way to deal with serial killers, the Death Penalty is the easiest option to go with. And, honestly, Death is quite a bit more humane than imprisonment. At least as far as I can tell.

 

Why should Jack the Ripper be put to death? Imprisonment does the job just as well. If necessary, put him in solitary.

 

I think that itself is a sensible solution to deal with serial killers. They are still humans. Don't butcher them.

 

Certainly, in situations where keeping the prisoner alive is dangerous, I say put him to death without a doubt, but whenever we can avoid that penalty without endangering society,I think we should.

 

As for the humanity of the penalty, that is certainly disputable. There have been issues, of late, regarding the methods by which the penalty is applied, for one thing.

 

And for another, I don't think a single convict on death row would for a second say they preferred their status. We value our lives. So do criminals.

 

 

The death penalty doesn't really have anything to do with humanity or being fair to the criminal. It's just the principal of the entire thing. I mean, there are exceptions (people who are clearly mentally unstable) but the fact still remains; if a person has murdered, it's only justice for the murderer to face the same penalty. I agree with the fact that death isn't as human as it should be. Both the Lethal Injection and Electric Chair are incredibly painful. I think that the best way to sentence a person to death is through Nitrogen Asphyxiation (now outlawed if I remember correctly) seeing as the person can't even tell there's a lack of oxygen.

 

And I highly doubt a single murder victim wanted to be murdered. Why should the murderer be given mercy when he showed no mercy for the victim?

 

See, that's the inconsistency. How is it justice to put somebody to death. Like, ever? Nobody deserves to be killed. Granted, many of these people didn't give respect that right to life regarding their victims, but I don't see how that lets us do the same to them.

 

Bolded: why?

 

This.

[Mindscatter]

Yeah, short answers are the best. But accidental crime should not require prison at all, just a very high (VERY HIGH) bails.