Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes.

No.

Only for certain crimes. (Name please)

[mainiac]

You know those people that have entire dossiers about them in FBI offices, but can't be arrested because the judiciary system is so full of loopholes? People that are obviously criminal scum, but have such lawyers that putting them behind bars is near-impossible.
Yeah, well when it's common knowledge that they are sacks of shit that know they will walk no matter what, it's so much fun to hear about how they shat themselves when a kill-team kicked down their door and dragged them out into the night.
That is the kind of people I was talking about.

Ooooh, I know them!  They exist in the movies and everything from the movies is real, right?

There's a quote from, oddly enough, an episode of Criminal Minds that makes sense to me when talking about the death penalty:
"I know it makes little sense to try and deter violence with more violence, but deterrence is not why I believe in the death penalty. There are some people that are so violent, so evil, that society has no choice but to be done with them. Vengeance is something that society needs from time to time if for no other purpose then to keep the rest of us sane."

If not outright killing the person then life sentences should be harsher. Lock them in a room alone, give them one poor meal, exactly enough food and water to survive but never know pleasures again. Break them, body and soul, until all that is left is a barely sentient excuse for a human being. That is the only fate that could be compared to the complete absence of existance.

And inflicting suffering on them accomplishes... what exactly?  Besides making you feel good?

[MorleyDev]

And imprisoning them accomplishes what, exactly? Stops them? Is that enough? Making people feel better is the only positive that can be drawn from the kind of crimes that result in a death penalty, only way you can pretend to have rebalanced the world. Isn't that what people want from the justice system, a sense that somehow the scales have been balanced?

[ChairmanPoo]

Not necessarily

[ed boy]

And imprisoning them accomplishes what, exactly? Stops them? Is that enough? Making people feel better is the only positive that can be drawn from the kind of crimes that result in a death penalty, only way you can pretend to have rebalanced the world. Isn't that what people want from the justice system, a sense that somehow the scales have been balanced?

One of the major arguments is that it acts as a disincentive. If you can make it clear to people that getting caught doing illegal things will result in negative repercussions to them, then that will make them less inclined to do illegal things.

[Leafsnail]

You know those people that have entire dossiers about them in FBI offices, but can't be arrested because the judiciary system is so full of loopholes? People that are obviously criminal scum, but have such lawyers that putting them behind bars is near-impossible.
Yeah, well when it's common knowledge that they are sacks of shit that know they will walk no matter what, it's so much fun to hear about how they shat themselves when a kill-team kicked down their door and dragged them out into the night.
That is the kind of people I was talking about.

Yeah, it's really annoying for towering gods of justice such as ourselves to have to deal with obviously guilty people going free due to "lack of evidence" or "being innocent".  I completely support killing them with murder squads and can see absolutely nothing wrong with this suggestion.

And imprisoning them accomplishes what, exactly? Stops them? Is that enough? Making people feel better is the only positive that can be drawn from the kind of crimes that result in a death penalty, only way you can pretend to have rebalanced the world. Isn't that what people want from the justice system, a sense that somehow the scales have been balanced?

Personally, I want my justice system to keep dangerous criminals off the streets, rehabilitate the salvagable ones and deter others from committing crimes.  I don't want it to commit sadistic acts of torture.

[Stas]

And imprisoning them accomplishes what, exactly? Stops them? Is that enough? Making people feel better is the only positive that can be drawn from the kind of crimes that result in a death penalty, only way you can pretend to have rebalanced the world. Isn't that what people want from the justice system, a sense that somehow the scales have been balanced?

This.

You know those people that have entire dossiers about them in FBI offices, but can't be arrested because the judiciary system is so full of loopholes? People that are obviously criminal scum, but have such lawyers that putting them behind bars is near-impossible.
Yeah, well when it's common knowledge that they are sacks of shit that know they will walk no matter what, it's so much fun to hear about how they shat themselves when a kill-team kicked down their door and dragged them out into the night.
That is the kind of people I was talking about.

Ooooh, I know them!  They exist in the movies and everything from the movies is real, right?

Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson?

And imprisoning them accomplishes what, exactly? Stops them? Is that enough? Making people feel better is the only positive that can be drawn from the kind of crimes that result in a death penalty, only way you can pretend to have rebalanced the world. Isn't that what people want from the justice system, a sense that somehow the scales have been balanced?

One of the major arguments is that it acts as a disincentive. If you can make it clear to people that getting caught doing illegal things will result in negative repercussions to them, then that will make them less inclined to do illegal things.

Wouldn't death be the best disincentive? You commit crime, you die. As simple as that.

You know those people that have entire dossiers about them in FBI offices, but can't be arrested because the judiciary system is so full of loopholes? People that are obviously criminal scum, but have such lawyers that putting them behind bars is near-impossible.
Yeah, well when it's common knowledge that they are sacks of shit that know they will walk no matter what, it's so much fun to hear about how they shat themselves when a kill-team kicked down their door and dragged them out into the night.
That is the kind of people I was talking about.

Yeah, it's really annoying for towering gods of justice such as ourselves to have to deal with obviously guilty people going free due to "lack of evidence" or "being innocent".  I completely support killing them with murder squads and can see absolutely nothing wrong with this suggestion.

And imprisoning them accomplishes what, exactly? Stops them? Is that enough? Making people feel better is the only positive that can be drawn from the kind of crimes that result in a death penalty, only way you can pretend to have rebalanced the world. Isn't that what people want from the justice system, a sense that somehow the scales have been balanced?

Personally, I want my justice system to keep dangerous criminals off the streets, rehabilitate the salvagable ones and deter others from committing crimes.  I don't want it to commit sadistic acts of torture.

Torture was never mentioned. Clean kill is the way to go.
When a kid does something stupid that deserves punishment, would you rather have a stern talk and send them to their room where they can relax, play with their toys and even contact their friends, all the while being angry at you without even a single thought about why they were punished? Or would it be best to switch their bottom and be done with it.
Personally, switching would dissuade me from doing stupid shit far more than a little stay in my room, a few harsh words and no dessert.

[rhesusmacabre]

I'm against. It seems to me to be an act motivated by hate and vengeance more than justice.

Another issue is the effect upon the criminal's friends and family. Many may well disown them, but some will stick by them, perhaps hoping for redemption or simply not believing in guilt (sometimes justifiably). More killing just leads to more grief, and although the criminal must face the consequences of their actions, a society has a responsibility to all its citizens.

[MorleyDev]

I'm against. It seems to me to be an act motivated by hate and vengeance more than justice.

I'm pretty sure Jail is also motivated by revenge...also the definition of justice seems very cyclic. That annoys me.

Seriously, pull the word justice out of like 99% of sentences and put revenge in it's place, and am I the only one that's noticed you get the exact same intent and meaning?

[ECrownofFire]

I'm against. It seems to me to be an act motivated by hate and vengeance more than justice.

I'm pretty sure Jail is also motivated by revenge...also the definition of justice seems very cyclic. That annoys me.

Seriously, pull the word justice out of like 99% of sentences and put revenge in it's place, and am I the only one that's noticed you get the exact same intent and meaning?

Justice is blind. Revenge isn't blind.

And justice being blind is kind of the entire POINT of having a justice system, so yeah.

[Gamerlord]

for, if it's for stuff like child molesters and rapists. especially child molesters.

[ed boy]

And imprisoning them accomplishes what, exactly? Stops them? Is that enough? Making people feel better is the only positive that can be drawn from the kind of crimes that result in a death penalty, only way you can pretend to have rebalanced the world. Isn't that what people want from the justice system, a sense that somehow the scales have been balanced?

One of the major arguments is that it acts as a disincentive. If you can make it clear to people that getting caught doing illegal things will result in negative repercussions to them, then that will make them less inclined to do illegal things.

Wouldn't death be the best disincentive? You commit crime, you die. As simple as that.

That was my point entirely - that the propspect of being killed is sufficiently negative to stop people from commiting crimes.

Of course, you then have to determine which of these crimes is worth a deterrent as strong as capital punishment.

I'm against. It seems to me to be an act motivated by hate and vengeance more than justice.

I'm pretty sure Jail is also motivated by revenge...also the definition of justice seems very cyclic. That annoys me.

Seriously, pull the word justice out of like 99% of sentences and put revenge in it's place, and am I the only one that's noticed you get the exact same intent and meaning?

It's not about revenge - revenge is merely a byproduct. The whole point of the justice system is to prevent people from doing things that are bad for society, by giving them a disincentive for doing those bad things.

[ChairmanPoo]

You have to determine that deterrence via capital punishment works to any meaningful extent, too.

[anzki4]

That was my point entirely - that the propspect of being killed is sufficiently negative to stop people from commiting crimes.

Nope.

[Leafsnail]

Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson?

Yeah, who cares if a court decided that there was reasonable doubt about their guilt.  We, the gods of justice, can just see that they're guilty.

Torture was never mentioned. Clean kill is the way to go.

If not outright killing the person then life sentences should be harsh. The only punishment that can be compared to the death penalty, in my mind, would be to rob a person of their ability to think. Maybe through medication that dopes them and takes away all that they were and are or something. Destroy a person's mind, and they may as well be dead and therefore it's the only thing you can compare to death. Anything else, allowing them to think, ponder and wonder, dream and fantasise, experience any kind of visceral pleasure...is and will always be preferable to death.

When a kid does something stupid that deserves punishment, would you rather have a stern talk and send them to their room where they can relax, play with their toys and even contact their friends, all the while being angry at you without even a single thought about why they were punished? Or would it be best to switch their bottom and be done with it.
Personally, switching would dissuade me from doing stupid shit far more than a little stay in my room, a few harsh words and no dessert.

I don't think "switching" their bottom would be such a good idea since it sends a message that violence is the answer to all their problems.  I mean, I'm sure it works great until they're old enough to start hitting people for themselves.

And how the heck is this analagous to the death penalty?  I'm pretty sure virtually every study conducted has shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent (since murderers generally either don't think too much about the consequences of their actions or really don't think they'll get caught).

Seriously, pull the word justice out of like 99% of sentences and put revenge in it's place, and am I the only one that's noticed you get the exact same intent and meaning?

Uh... no, unless you have a hideously warped view of justice it doesn't.

"Justice makes sure that petty criminals can be rehabilitated"
"Revenge makes sure that... uh, wait"

As I said, there are 3 very good non-revenge reasons (rehabilitation, prevention and deterrence) to have justice.  In my opinion revenge just interferes with those.

[ed boy]

That was my point entirely - that the propspect of being killed is sufficiently negative to stop people from commiting crimes.

Nope.

That is not a good proof - there are all sorts of differing variables. Simply pulling up a page of those statistics completely abandons the scientific method.

Unfortunately, you will never be able to get a proof of that form - any two data sets will be different in so many ways, and will have so many uncontrolled variables that statistics like that are worthless.

And how the heck is this analagous to the death penalty?  I'm pretty sure virtually every study conducted has shown that the death penalty is not a deterrent (since murderers generally either don't think too much about the consequences of their actions or really don't think they'll get caught).

You're certainly right on that front - for example, anders breivik expected to be killed, yet he did what he did anyway. But it may certainly have an effect on other sorts of people. Someone who sells crack to children, for example, would liekly be a lot more deterred. We need to consider how capital punishment would apply for other crimes.

Spoiler: example crimes (click to show/hide)

Consider the following. Some you might deem worthy of capital punishment, some you might not, but they are all situations where some would consider death penalty appropriate, yet do not involve murder.

A man embezzles millions from a charitable organisation that provides food, water, and medical care to people in famine-struck somalia. The money that he took could have saved a large number of lives.

A group of people rent a building and start produce child pornography. The landlord is aware of this, and demands extra money from them in exchange for keeping quiet. When the police launch an investigation, the landlord destroys a large quantity of evidence.

A man living near to a school start selling crack to the students. In order to fund their addictions, the youths turn to stealing and assault.