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)

[alway]

Life imprisonment might not be enough, since seriously now, the guy might escape and continue his killing spree. At least, permanently cripple the guy's legs, and one arm and eye. That should keep him from being able to do anything significant.

It is unethical to cause unnecessary harm to another individual without their consent, especially if the harm in question is permanent. You need to understand, even though these people have been convicted by a jury, that doesn't mean that they did indeed commit the crime. It only means that the jury found them to appear guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and as we all know, people are very, very fallible. We have to treat criminals in prison as if they might still be innocent of their crimes, because that very well may be the case.

In addition to that, also understand it is, as far as I'm aware, a single person deciding what sentence to carry out. The term "Hanging Judge" exists for a reason. So the question then becomes: do you really want to give the power to legally kill/maim others to a small number of people who, despite their law training, are in the end still people?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yes, but why is it immoral? Is it not more immoral to let them suffer in jail? Is it not more humane to simply kill them and end their suffering?

My hope is to create a system that ends with most people eventually leaving prison reformed and never coming back. Obviously, there will always be some that will never be safe around other people, but there are worse things than life in prison.

[Trapezohedron]

It may be hard for some to admit, but gory deaths deter crimes. I wished we televised executions and used more graphic methods of death, such as a return to electrocution or gas. All methods of execution can potentially cause excruciating pain, even lethal injections, so I see no problem with it.

I have... a feeling that he won't care too much about how horrible a death stoning is either.

 To be fair, once you have jumped in the death penalty bandwagon, it sort of makes more sense to make it more bloody and public than private and whitewashed (as is done nowadays, in an attempt to make it seem more "civilized)

Actually, It'd be better if his status wasn't found out in the public at all, and information doesn't leak.

The Manila hostage crisis happened because the guy who held the hostage knew from television that his brother was imprisoned.

Add to the fact that the police force was incompetent, and the media kept displaying the live feed over the television, and the bus has television, it made the whole thing go from 'worse' to 'knee-deep in excrement'

EDIT: By 'guy knew that his brother was imprisoned', I mean if a significant event happens and one of his supporters see it, a whole new level of excrement happens.

[Leafsnail]

So uh... secret police death squads and media suppression, then?

[alway]

So uh... secret police death squads and media suppression, then?

Don't forget the arrests without giving any way of finding who was arrested or why.

[Leafsnail]

So instead of finding out your brother was imprisoned he just gets "disappeared" like everyone else who opposes the totalitarian government comitted crimes.

[ChairmanPoo]

Are we at war with Oceania or with Eurasia? I have a hard time remembering...

[Realmfighter]

It may be hard for some to admit, but gory deaths deter crimes. I wished we televised executions and used more graphic methods of death, such as a return to electrocution or gas. All methods of execution can potentially cause excruciating pain, even lethal injections, so I see no problem with it.

I would support this, because if you find something disgusting better it be in your face so you can't ignore it. Or people would enjoy watching it, but by that point I think we as a species would be thoroughly fucked.

Yes, but why is it immoral? Is it not more immoral to let them suffer in jail? Is it not more humane to simply kill them and end their suffering?

It is not more humane because you are projecting your own feelings (That life in a cage is worse then death) on people who might not feel that way.

[Trapezohedron]

Nope. I'm just saying that care should be taken if you're going to throw the death sentence. It might go haywire, at the worst possible moment.

EDIT: And no, I'm not saying the arrests should be done in secret, when the guy is obviously arrested and stuff. I'm not really keen on silencing all events anyway. But care should be taken, and don't let the media put the footage of someone's loved one, or some kind of adored idol, being put to something horrible/accusing him of something, in the same day as someone holding a whole bus' worth of people hostage.

Make sure to take care of loose ends first.

[ECrownofFire]

Yes, but why is it immoral? Is it not more immoral to let them suffer in jail? Is it not more humane to simply kill them and end their suffering?

It is not more humane because you are projecting your own feelings (That life in a cage is worse then death) on people who might not feel that way.

Isn't the point of a jail (as it's used today) punishment? Even if it's not entirely the point, that's exactly what it ends up being.

[Realmfighter]

Isn't the point of a jail (as it's used today) punishment? Even if it's not entirely the point, that's exactly what it ends up being.

True, but I would never defend that function.

That doesn't invalidate the fact that some people prefer life in prison over death.

[Trapezohedron]

Isn't the point of a jail (as it's used today) punishment? Even if it's not entirely the point, that's exactly what it ends up being.

True, but I would never defend that function.

That doesn't invalidate the fact that some people prefer life in prison over death.

Yeah, some people in fact like prison because they get to eat for free, and the possibility of getting a bed.

[ECrownofFire]

Isn't the point of a jail (as it's used today) punishment? Even if it's not entirely the point, that's exactly what it ends up being.

True, but I would never defend that function.

That doesn't invalidate the fact that some people prefer life in prison over death.

Yeah, some people in fact like prison because they get to eat for free, and the possibility of getting a bed.

So what if we asked people if they'd rather die or get life in prison?

[Vector]

When I start/finish reading Discipline and Punish, I'm sure I'll have some choice words to add to this topic.

[Bauglir]

Murder is a sin. Executing a murderer is a righteous act. One has divine justification and the other is the act of an animal who needs to be put down.

Okay, so this is the basic tenet your conclusion springs from. Why is murder a sin? Is it wrong because God decreed it so, or did God decree it so because it is wrong? I do know that, arguably, both can be true (since, as the originator of all things, God would have to have decreed morality in the first place), but let's put aside that evasion of the real question for now. It misses the point; is respecting the commandment not to kill morally good solely because it is obedience to God's will, or is it also morally good because human life has inherent worth (presumably granted by God)?