Midorea V3 Development Merch | Search | Memberlist | Vault | The Forge | Battle! | Temple
   
  
Goody Shop Reward

      Log-In   Not a member? Register Now! 
Midorea Forum Index / The University
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic The Death Penalty
The Emo Duck



Send private message


 PostPosted: Sat May 15, 2010 7:46 am Reply with quote        
The money thing you bring up isn't really a problem with life in prison. When there is someone on death row, or more people, taxes rise but a small small percentage, one that they hope no one will notice to pay for it. Inmates who are in there for life cause no change because it doesn't cost as much. Death penalty cases are tried in more courts, they have twice as many hearings as life in prison cases, they have twice as many lawyers, they have bigger teams working on evidence. The time and people put into death penalty cases, plus how much the injection costs, is far more than paying for what inmates get in prison. So money can't really back up the side of pro death penalty.

It's hard to find someone 100% proven without a doubt to have committed any crime. For every real confession, with details about the case, there has been a fake confession with details about the case. Even with DNA evidence at the scene it's possible that they didn't do it. Proving that someone committed a crime is a hard thing to do, especially being 100% sure.

The truth behind the matter is if they are a sociopath or psychopath they won't ever feel sorry for what they have done. But scheduling the date and time of someones death is exactly what they did with the people they killed. By telling them they are going to die, by trying to make them fear it, by making them wait on death row for years, we are torturing them and we are eventually going to kill them. Think about all the people who have to administer the shot, I'm sure many of them have to go to therapy to deal with what they are doing. You have to have certain qualifications to be able to administer the shot, because if you don't know what you're doing you might fail and have to do it again. The injection causes the inmates to have convulsions and squirm and scream while it's killing them. It took about 7 minutes to kill the DC sniper; does that sound in anyway humane and not like torture? No one knows what those people are feeling then, scientists say they are just reactions and that they feel no pain, but how could they know that if they haven't been put through it, and through it at such a high dosage. I know that some killers torture their victims before they kill them, but does that mean that if the government decides to go down the road of killing those killers, should they do the same? The answer is that they can't, it's written in the constitution. If something makes a person scream and squirm and have convulsions while they are dying I think that can be categorized as cruel and unusual punishment.

I also believe that every human is a human, and I believe that when someone goes down the wrong path we should examine why and try to figure out what went wrong. Not everyone is like that so there must be something different about the people who do. A different brain chemistry, and different brain structure. But in order to see what it is, we need to be able to examine the brain and brain activity, which means we need them alive. I think we need to find out what causes someone to be a socio or psychopath and see if there is a way to reverse brain chemistry and make them like everyone else; with parental and patient permission of course. But I think they should be given a chance to in a way reverse what they've done, if that makes sense, by helping prevent as many brutal murders in the future. Obviously I don't know for sure if they've been looking into something like this I just believe it would be a nice thing to try out to see if it might work and if it doesn't then we would need to come up with some other idea.

Super wall of text....

elliryanna55



Send private message


 PostPosted: Mon Oct 25, 2010 4:51 pm Reply with quote        
I think the death penalty is okay IF that person killed someone else on purpose (because you can kill someone on accident ex.drunk driving) I think whatever you did to someone you should have done to you and thats that if they wanted to do that to someone then they should have to endure it too
nocturnalxpulse



Send private message


 PostPosted: Wed Nov 03, 2010 3:17 pm Reply with quote        
either way i feel that it should be put into action, in the case of a drunk driver, They should not have been out on the road while drunk./..... The only way i belive you should be nullnvoid from the death penlty is if you had to to protect your own life, if somone breaks into your ouse and comes at you so you shoot and kill them, you should not be under the death penalty because you had no other option it was kill or be killed.

_________________
TGPretender



Send private message


 PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 1:12 pm Reply with quote        
I'm for the death penalty. Then again, being born in Texas probably has something to do with that.

Both my grandparents are mental physicians. This has put me in a unique position to hear many sides of the argument of where or not the urge to murder can be cured. The side I've become comfortable with is that in many cases, no, it cannot.

If a dog goes rabid, we kill the dog. We understand there's no other choice. It will continue to harm other animals, people, and itself. There is no cure. For me, it's the same with people. Unfortunately, not everything can be cured with therapy and medicine. When people go rabid, it is our duty to put them down.
Lady Lyria



Send private message


 PostPosted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 5:05 pm Reply with quote        
In general, I do not believe in the death penalty. After all, it's not any human's place to decide whether or not someone else should die. However, there are times when I do believe it to be necessary. I don't actually think it should be decided in court, though. If someone is threatening someone's life, I believe you should kill them or at least disable them. If they are caught and in court, I think they should go to jail if at all possible. If they are commiting a crime and they happen to be shot and killed, I think it's a different situation and really isn't as wrong. Of course, I guess I'm getting a bit off topic.... Sweat
JayneRaella



Send private message


 PostPosted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:00 pm Reply with quote        
how exactly is the death penalty a punishment it's just letting them off letting them forget what they've done in replacement for death penalty they should be given life with no possibity of parole
nocturnalxpulse



Send private message


 PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:19 pm Reply with quote        
how is the parole even helping? they think if i kill someone i'll just have to do a bit of time and i'm good. You can't escape deathy? there is no forgivness in it. WE watch the people who killed our loved ones get get killed. its called justice

_________________
ecco



Send private message


 PostPosted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 6:27 pm Reply with quote        
....yea, except for when someone has been wrongly charged.

death penalty = wrong.

i mean seriously... if you do it that way, innocent people will die too while the real murderers are still out there, in some cases.

for instance there was a woman in the UK who was imprisoned for supposedly killing a toddler (she was a babysitter). the idea was that she had beaten his head against a stair banister which caused him to die of head injuries.
she was in jail for three years, taken away from her own husband and children and all the rest.
then she was released when the case was revisited and they found out - oh, the people in charge of the forensics lied. the judge didnt do their job properly. there was NO head injury from said beating against stair banister, there was no blood or evidence on the banister, and so on and so forth. in actual fact the toddler had died due to an undiagnosed problem with his brain/heart or something, and he had a fatal fit that day she was babysitting.
when she was released and the press were all there wanting a statement, the poor women could barely speak. just stood there and sobbed into her husband's chest.

now imagine is she had been given the death penalty for apparently killing the toddler. she would lose her life, her kids would lose their mother, her husband his wife, and so on - how is THAT justice?


no offence, but judicial systems can't be trusted with things like death penalties. i dont think capital punishment can ever be acceptable.

_________________

nocturnalxpulse



Send private message


 PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:35 pm Reply with quote        
because there is a limit, when they know you killed aomeone and there are more than 20 whitnesses, then why should you get off easy? if the proof is right there, the whitnesses right there, and so on and so forth then There should be a death penalty, there still should be investigations and they should still have to have whitnesses, and if they dont have the death penalty then you should not go to jail for killing a person that killed someone you love. they dont give you the death penalty on the first offence unless its an atrousity

_________________
ecco



Send private message


 PostPosted: Thu Feb 10, 2011 4:53 pm Reply with quote        
well if you wanna get all "JUSTICE" on their asses, how does that make the law any better? what gives them the right to take a life, but any other citizen not to?

sorry but, another example of how fucked up the law and judicial system is - a documentary was made a few years ago now about deaths in police custody in the UK. i can't remember the original number, but i did the maths when i watched it and it averaged at 2 or 3 deaths a week.

one of the cases that was most famous, was a black man who was mistaken for someone the police were looking for. he was killed by the two police officers, who got violent with him when he had done nothing to merit such a reaction - the one who dealth the fatal blow with a bludgeon claimed that he had hit the man's neck and the bludgeon had slipped upwards and hit his skull. forensics proved that he'd been hit directly on the top of the skull with a force equivalent to a fall from a 9th storey window.

all of this was proven in court, the judge and jury decided the officers were guilty, yet they were not sentenced. no jailtime, no compensation for the bereaved, nothing. and this is still going on here.


the law will ALWAYS be faulty, both ways - with the innocent being condemned and the guilty walking away freely - and so in my eyes, no irreversible punishment can ever be justified.

_________________

nocturnalxpulse



Send private message


 PostPosted: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:23 pm Reply with quote        
howeever that is why we have the court seystem. we give people the right to prove themselves innocent.

if there is a cop who is shooting people cause he looked like someone they were after they should be stripped of their right to be called an officer of the law. however, that isnt the case and im sorry, but if i recap i said that if there were whitnesses over 20 then a persson should get the death penalty.

Also, if someone goes and kills a persons family, and so that person goes and kills that person who killed their family, it should be exuced as justified. there is a far line from murder and justice. and as it is not mans right to decide when a person dies, if its not their time they wont, just like you cant kill yourself. if its not your time you wont go. thats just the fact. i do not believe in giving criminals and murders a nice cell block with internet movies and exercise rooms as punishment.

_________________
Maeve
Moderator
Moderator


Send private message


 PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:56 am Reply with quote        
nocturnalxpulse wrote:
we give people the right to prove themselves innocent.


Uh, dunno about your court system, but in lots of countries, it works the other way (i.e you need to prove someone is guilty, and they are deemed innocent unless enough evidences are given).
As for the rest of your statement... I prefer not commenting. *>.>

I don't see death penalty as a punishment for a criminal, but rather as another way to make the society safer. The goal of any justice system is to make the world safer - and sometimes fair(er) - for the society in which it works. So, to prevent people from suffering (physically, mentally, etc.) because of the actions of someone, we put criminals in prison, where they can't really do anything wrong to anyone (other criminals are not included, since it is believed they have done something to end up where they are now) and, with some luck and efforts, they can understand what they have done and change.

Now, to consider killing them like a punishment, one has to believe something happens after the death (or nothing happens, depending of your belief, but being reduce to nothing could still be considered a punishment). Like, God will judge you for your crimes and you will burn in hell for eternity, which is a greater punishment than pretty much anything mankind could do. Since those beliefs are highly variable from one person to another, and since they haven't been proven yet, I can't really consider such a thing will happen, and thus the punishment side of the death penalty fails.

Then, some people say that it will influence people in not making crimes, because they will be afraid of being killed. A simply look at criminal statistics from countries would apply the death penalty and other who don't easily prove that that way of thinking is false. Countries encouraging the reinsertion of criminals into society, giving them help to get better/ change, have a lower number of crimes in general, and especially violent crimes (murder and such), which tends to prove that the death penalty is useless for its (non)dissuasive effects.


I don't believe in killing other human beings. Killing other people because of something as vague as "justice" is just... wrong, and easy to abuse. Because yes, a justice system depends widely of the values of the society creating it. A simple look at "honor crimes" (when someone, usually a woman, is killed because she has dishonored her family) proves how far things can go. Obviously that's not the way most people in Occident see justice, but even then, the opinion of a population can be manipulated, and justice can be turned around to help someone achieve his goal (*cough*Hitler*cough*).

Now, while it is true that some people do horrible things, I believe the number of those who can't be rehabilitated (and therefore would need to stay in prison all their life) is very small. And since the others, with some time and efforts, can be changed (not necessarily to become uber-good citizens, but at least enough not to hurt other people), I believe it would be wrong to kill them.

_________________
On semi-hiatus all the time during school year.
I'll reply to post whenever I can.
PM me if you need a quick answer.
ecco



Send private message


 PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 11:58 am Reply with quote        
lol wait, wtf? so you're saying if someone killed my family, i'd be justified in killing their family?

that is total BS. i'm sorry but that is incredibely warped logic. an eye for an eye makes the world blind, and all that. just cos one person is evil to the bone doesn't mean anyone else should pay the price for their doings.

_________________

nocturnalxpulse



Send private message


 PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 8:15 pm Reply with quote        
i did not say "their family" i said them as in that person in whom killed your family. Its not warped its justice, if you kill somone who did no wrong and was innocent then you should be killed

_________________
ecco



Send private message


 PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:39 am Reply with quote        
AHH i'm sorry, yes, i just re-read your post and realised what you meant. yes, i can agree with that, i think. that makes much more sense.

i'm pretty much with maeve, though.
and in the UK its "innocent til proven guilty", not the other way around. much better, IMO, mainly because for me, it is better to have a few guilty people slip through the net than to sentence innocent people. it's just not right.

tbh as well, i am a liberal and there is no liberty in living under a government that has the power to take your very LIFE away. yes, someone may try to kill you and you could say theyre doing the same as what i'm suggesting government's shouldnt be able to do - but i thought the point of having power or leading others was to set a good example. in my mind, if the government says they have the right to take someone's life, why shouldn't any of its citizens? there is no "justice" in that.

also i'd like to point out, some nutcases who want to kill actually do so by joining the military - and i know this because i had a very long discussion with a guy i met who was in the special services here. he said that some join for the money, some join for patriotism, and others join because they actually enjoy the violence involved. so, if they sign up to something that can involve killing others because they actually get some JOY or gratification out of it, does that make them any better than just some other scumbag off the street that knifed someone to death?

_________________

Post new topic   Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next



Powered By phpBB Home | Rules | FAQ | Help | TOS | Privacy Policy | Contact us