Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jordan on February 24, 2008 at 1:09pm

some arguments from both sides:

Anti:
-It's Cruel and Unusual Punishment
-It's Hypocrisy, and seeing as 80% of a message recieved is from action not content, 80% of the message you're sending the public is "killing a killer is ok" while that 20% content contradicts, saying "killing is never ok"
-It allows ground for people to think of certain types of murder as "Just," since within the JUSTice system they commit murder
-We're one of the only countries in the world that officially uses the death penalty
-It's not a Deterrent, seeing as when people commit murder they are rarely thinking about the consequences
-Violates their human rights
-Bottom Line: It Takes a Human Life

Pro:
-You need a Higher top end punishment than Life in Prison.. for example if life in prison is the highest punishment available, and someone gets that punishment, then while in prison they shank and kill someone, how are you going to increase their punishment? they're already in jail for life, they already had the maximum punishment-so now they have nothing to lose and can commit any act without any consequences
-Free up the tremendous traffic in our Legal system
-The EPITOME of Justice... as in an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth... also the EPITOME of having a punishment fit a crime
-Shows an absolute zero tolerance for certain acts
-Gives Peace of mind to those affected by the acts of the criminal (usually family of the murder victim)
-It's a State matter, not a federal matter, on whether or not to have a death penalty.. so a nationwide ban would be infringing on how our governmental system is supposed to work. Within those states that have a death penalty, obviously the majority of that state population wants a death penalty, otherwise they would have voted against it, and it wouldn't be there.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Brandon S on February 24, 2008 at 1:33pm

If we increased the death penalty to any semi-serious crime, I guarantee you the crime rate would go WAY down. Some people don't care if they spend 10-30 years in prison. Then when they get out, they do it again!

Some say it is unethical to kill someone who was a mass murderer. Why? Why don't you want to end the life of someone who as destroyed the lives of innocent people?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Mulk on February 26, 2008 at 3:28pm

I totally argue , the more we enforce the death penalty the more people will be knowledgeable of it causing a decrease in Crime. I hope

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Aleaska on February 27, 2008 at 9:02pm

but if we start raising the death penalty then people will start to think that if the government is allowed to kill people then why dont we go out there and kill people for them, in other words U.S. gone psycho. then what we cant just go and kill our whole nation that would be kinda dumb wouldnt it

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ronan001 on March 2, 2008 at 4:02pm

Humans from the day of their birth learn from what they see and hear. Parents lead by example over their children, they teach them right and wrong.

In a less obvious manner, the leaders of countries and local authorities are the parent figure over adults. If the authorities murder people then it sends out the signal that the act of murder is acceptable.

Governments need to broadcast loud and clear that murder is unacceptable by anyone or any authorities. Not until that view is properly transferred to the public will the value of life be truely recognised by all.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alex V. on February 25, 2008 at 9:58am

First of all, a useful map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Death_Penalty_Wo...

I personally am against the death penalty because above all else it's hypocritical. Killing someone who for example killed someone else doesn't make you any better than that person, no matter how you try to rationalize it. And what if that person was innocent? The justice system is not perfect. Mistakes can happen and have happened. Sending someone who is innocent to death is, plain and simple, institutionalized murder.

As for it being a deterrent, if that was the case then in states that practice capital punishment crime rate should be much lower than in those that don't. And that isn't the case. Apart from psychopaths, every crime has a motive. The way to reduce crime is not to have extreme punishments, but to tackle the causes, such as poverty, poor education and bad influences.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jordan on February 25, 2008 at 12:54pm

Ok, and with no death penalty there is a maximum punishment.. Life in Prison for example. So as soon as someone gets that Life in Prison, as soon as they have that maximum punishment, you've just turned them into desperados in the prison yard. They now have nothing to lose because they already have the maximum punishment.. they can go shank 80 fellow prisoners and guards, and how are you going to punish him for that? Justice dictates that he must be punished for that, but because you've taken out the death penalty how are you going to serve that Justice? Give him ANOTHER life in prison? That won't work because he only has one Life and he already is spending that one life in prison for the first crime.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Alex V. on February 25, 2008 at 5:00pm

I don't know any specifics, but I'm sure there are other ways to punish someone besides killing them.

I know there are good arguments for capital punishment, and sometimes I do feel that some people should be killed for what they did. But what I'm saying is that it is morally wrong to condemn taking a human life and still to sentence someone to death.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Aelius on February 26, 2008 at 8:27am

uh... its called 'life in the box'. I fail to see how 'death' should be used as a deterant. If someone with life imprisonment is in jail, shoudl he kill someone he goes in 'the hole'. So yes, they already have something in place.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jordan on February 26, 2008 at 12:58pm

And the few prisoners that manage to shank a guard through the hole in the door that food(etc.) goes through when they have life in solitary? How do you propose to further punish them?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Michael Jahn on February 26, 2008 at 1:10pm

1. How did the inmate get that shank ?

2. Who designed a door hole in such a way that someone could reach through it and stab someone ?

3. What guard, knowing that an inmate had access to some harmful objects and that there is this horrible design in the prison door would be careless enough to put them in position to be "shanked" ?

If you are in prison and you do bad things, trust me, they punish you. But people do not always stop doing bad things just because they will get punished - even if they KNOW they will absolutely get punished, they will still do bad things. So, the death penalty clearly does not somehow make people do "less" bad things. Fact. People still kill even when they know they may be killed if they are caught.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jordan on February 26, 2008 at 1:29pm

I'm not suggesting the use of the death penalty as a deterrent. I'm suggesting that people need to be punished when they commit a crime, and that just because you have "Life in Solitary" doesn't mean that you can't or won't commit a crime.. and if Life is In Solitary is the highest punishment you can get.. how are supposed to punish those who manage to commit crimes while in solitary? You can't.. they already have the MAXIMUM punishment, and by not being able to further punish someone who has committed further crimes, you cannot fulfill your obligation to serve Justice. No matter what people say, the bottom line is that Justice is not about deterring crimes. Justice is not about trying to correct people. Justice is about giving each what they are due, in accordance with their actions. If someone commits a crime, they are due the punishment for that crime, it's an action and a reaction. If you cannot supply the reaction, then Justice is not served.

to answer your questions:
1. Inmates literally have all the time in the world to think of ways to make shanks. Some of them choose to spend their time like this. It's not that hard.. You can literally make a weapon out of anything. If it comes down to it you could knock out one of your own teeth, sharpen it against the wall, or perhaps a toilet bowl or sink, get some thread from your clothes, or bedding, and use that thread to attatch it to something like a toothbrush, or a stick and viola you have a viable shank. Or there's always the one where you use your jello to help you swallow a lighter, shit it out later, and use the lighter to melt the plastic wrappers from your food into a shank-like shape, then let it dry, then melt it again, let it dry, melt it again..etc. each time this is repeated the plastic gets harder, soon enough it has a very hard, very sharp point. Again, you can literally make a weapon out of anything.

2.The door hole is designed so that you can take a tray of food and place it in the cell, so if the hole is big enough for a tray of food to be moved in and out of the cell, obviously it's big enough for an arm to move in and out of the cell.

3. Humans are fallible, and seeing as guards/other prison workers are human, guards/other prison workers are fallible.

▶ Reply to This

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11