|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,929 Year: 4,186/9,624 Month: 1,057/974 Week: 16/368 Day: 16/11 Hour: 0/0 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It certainly makes for a better game of COD.  I'm sorry, but you referenced the wrong game... BF3 is where its at.
I like the deliberate one best though. It has the sense that a lot of people have looked at the evidence, that last minute possible stay of execution is available if something was seen, and the final execution is carried out with respect to the person going through it. Even a last meal and some final words. Bin Laden got a bullet to the dome and his body tossed out like fish chum. I was told he was guilty so fuck it he must be, right? I don't really know. You don't really know if Bin Laden was guilty? Didn't you see his videos? Certainly, we can both agree that he was guilty of the U.S. thinking he needed to be taken out  And sending choppers full fo SEAL guys isn't something they do all willy-nilly. That shits expensive. I'm sure they had courtroom-like amounts of evidence. What they didn't have, was Bin Laden sitting in a courtroom. But the question was about trusting the government to do the proper work to ensure guilt. I don't think assassinations should require the same hindrance that a courtroom has. For army operations, they don't always have the luxury of having court as an option. And they have a vested interest in their country so I think we should be able to trust them to make those kinds of determinations.
If I was to support one though, I prefer the death penalty. But with a convict, you already got the guy. Now you're just tea-bagging him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
1. Its a deterrant.
But all of the data conclusively show time and again that it's not. The murder rate is lower in states where there is no death penalty; obviously the death penalty cannot be a functional deterrent if there are more murders where it is used. Oh, I dunno. I don't think the data is that conclusive.
2. It prevents future crimes by that person. It does...but so does keeping them in prison, or rehabilitating them, or any other potential solution. They could commit crimes in prison. Also, they argue that people tend get out of jail and could go on and commit another murder. Too, that some people are beyond rehabilitation.
3. It could save money over keeping people in prison for the rest of their lives Yet it doesn't, because we must allow for multiple, thorough appeals to ensure that the convicted individual is actually guilty of the crime. It costs more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life. Sure, but that could just be an argument against the appeals process rather than one against capital punishment.
4. Justice for the victims' families 5. Vengeance These are the same thing, I don't think so. Justice and vengeance are not synonomous.
If "murderers going free" = "innocent men being killed in the future", then letting them go would ensure innocent deaths. Not necessarily. But the real point of that statement was to express my horror at the potential (and it's actually happened) to execute innocent people. Well in a pragmatic sense, that risk of an innocent death could be worth the prevention of future ones. Ya know, if it worked.
Don't you think that would lead to more murders? It hasn't in areas where such a prison policy is actually used, right now. I wasn't speaking hypothetically - it's a real policy that exists in many European nations. You cannot ever be sentenced to more than ~20 years regardless of your crime, but the state retains the ability to continue to detain you if you are assessed to pose a reasonable risk to yourself or others if released. It's that last bit that I think prevents the additional murders; the former is a consequence of other nations' focus on rehabilitation over vengeance and punishment. Their way objectively works better. I'd have to see the data.
My base human instincts, those feelings that drive us all to desire revenge and punishment, may have some sway within me...but they do not have a greater power to move me to action than do my moral considerations. Well that's really easy to type on a message board 
Understanding a desire is not the same as supporting a course of action. I get where that comes from, but I still would not support the death penalty, under any circumstance whatsoever. Heh:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I just don't mean punishment in the sense that the worst is the best. I feel execution is enough. There is, in my opinion, no need to torture for example just to get more justice from the punishment. Okay, why is death "just the rigt amount"? You wrote:
quote: What I was getting at, was when the criminal would prefer the ease of death over life imprisonment, wouldn't death no longer be the right amount of justice? That is, it'd be the easy way out for them.
And most are not executed for that. But look at the video I posted for Strag, what do you do, what are those OTHER options when a guy has killed, been punished, killed again, was punished again, and is threatening to eventually kill again? I'm not saying kill him for making the threat, but lets say he goes through with it. He kills a third time. Now what? What are the options left? Lock him up in a room by himself.
For many, death is the ultimate suffering. Too, sitting on Death Row has gotta be torturous. I could see it either way. Well they have to sit on death row, I get that, the point was that sitting there waiting to die could be considered tourous. If you didn't have the death penalty, then you'd eliminate that. Remember that you were saying that you'd rather get rid of them than torture them.
Do you mean sedate them? Yeah! If they're gonna act like a wild animal, the shoot 'em with a tranqiuilizer gun like one 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
