Debate Capital Punishment..

If i really wanted to kill somebody i dont think that anything would stop me, even knowing that i would be phusically tortured for the rest of my life. Seriously, torturing someone wouldnt lead to anything good :sad: . Torturing is a crime and justice should be crime free.

 

Qualify? I think that is not the proper word for it. The word should be, make. What makes a criminal act that way? Nature.

What are you speaking on? Thus, one differs?

 

Oh, bull. Criminals do what they do of their own free will, they aren't just -born- criminals. Proof that criminals cannot help themselves. While a small number do have compulsions (such as kleptomania) these do not form the majority.

Never mind. Just... never mind. That, or use a dictionary if you have trouble understanding.

 

Simple. Remove the entire police force and bring in an entirely new one, even if said forces have to be loaned from the military or military ally.

 

people have the freedom of choice, they may do as they please to their own
expense.people choose what they want to do with their life, they can either use it, or throw it away. people are what they are today, because of the path of life they took and their past, people are not born killers, they are made them.

 

That's a flawed argument. You're not taking into account the classic "nature vs. nurture" concept - and believe me, the "nurture" aspect does play a large part in whether or not a person develops criminal tendencies. If it didn't, we would see fairly equal numbers of criminals from all social classes and backgrounds. But we don't - there are far more criminals who come from states of poverty, from abusive or troubled families, and from situations in which violent and criminal behaviors were LEARNED. Therefor, criminal nature is not just about nature, so your entire argument is pretty much rendered null and void right there.

Let's not forget that crimes can actually be committed through ignorance, accident, or desperation rather than because of simple inclination or some uncontrollable impulse. If I were to hit a pedestrian while driving drunk, it would definitely be a crime, but it wouldn't be a deliberate act.

If it's "not in our conscience, will, or nature to judge," then why do we do it? Even if it's just that we were raised to - obviously it was in SOMEONE'S nature and they got everyone else doing it.

But wouldn't we still have to judge who's a criminal? >_> Otherwise, how could we select who would be judged by nature? Are you suggesting that we just let every murderer run around free until nature strikes them down? If not, I don't see how your method is practicable.

So yeah. In short, I still stand by the death penalty as more favorable than the less practical alternatives that are being suggested.

Incidentally, Dusk, you use of unnecessarily complex and flowery language/phrasing doesn't make your arguments any more valid.

 

First of all, I am very much disappointed that someone has deleted my previous reply to your post on the subject of nature vs. nuture. I don't know whether the deleting is done accidentally or intentionally. But I will repeat what I have said in that deleted reply in different yet simpler words and phrases.

Dilandau, you are suggesting the idea of nature vs nuture and your are suggesting that my argument is flawed in your saying "criminal nature is not just about nature."

An idea of mine:

If nurture accounts for tendencies which are learnt from an environment of variable influences, if nature accounts for inborn or instinctual tendencies, and if all individuals and all known environment come from (or exist in) nature, then nature accounts for all tendencies and all tendencies come from nature for all things that exist in or by nature.

You have asserted that "crimes can actually be committed through ignorance, accident, or desperation rather than because of simple inclination or some uncontrollable impulse."

An idea of mine:

Ignorance and desperation produce the uncontrollable impulse. That is, nature has it set that how an individual act depends on how easily that individual is influenced by his or her environment, and ignorance and desperation are just some potential causes of crimes. In other words, how much influence ignorance and/or desperation have/has on an individual depends on that individual's nature through (natural) inclination.

You have also said that the will of judgement is in at least one individual and that you don't see how my method is practicable.

An idea of mine:

My method is practicable in a perfect or an imaginary world. But this world is imperfect and corrupt (?), so the idea is proposed in discussion or debate and in explanation only. So by my previous posts, I don't consider the subject to be that complicated but how that is carried out is complex. The subject of capital punishment is observed from many perspectives, but the subject exists in one position for it's is part of known law and we speak for fun of the debate. Concerning the idea of judgement, we judge because most of us are highly influenced by our environment from our appearance to our thinking. Our nature makes us that way and we cannot change anything about it.

 

Intentionally, and by a moderator. She isn't too happy with you.

You just can't take a hint, can you?

Semantics. Nature in this case is not referring to environment; it is referring to the instincts you are born with. Entities operating of their own violition are not part of nature in this case.

Not every crime is uncontrollable impulse. More often than not it's calculated well in advance.

Which isn't what we live in, which perplexes me as to why you'd even bother posting it.


(Edit: According to Dusk I make an appeal to authority in my arguments. The only authority I've mentioned is the person moderating this forum, so you can tell just how much Dusk really knows about debating. I also apparently make hasty generalizations here, even though I never said "all x is y". Take what you will from it, but I see this as a strong indication of Dusks poor grasp of english. One can be verbose and use big words, but still not understand whats actually being said.)

 

Dusk, if your entire position is based on something which you admit would only work in an imaginary or ideal world, I don't understand why you're trying to debate it here, in a topic that's meant to apply to real-world issues. A more appropriate place would be the Philosophy forum, don't you think?

I only really brought up the nature vs. nurture thing in defense against what I saw to be an illogical argument - I didn't think that statistics and source material would be necessary, as that's another debate entirely, and I didn't want to venture too far off-topic. I apologize for starting a problem.

To move this back in the direction of the original topic, I'd like to point out that the death penalty is not generally applied to people who are deemed to have had no control over their actions. People who suffer compulsions that they cannot manage or who are clearly mentally unstable are more often placed in special facilities where they can be treated. It's people who are in control of themselves, at least to the degree that they can plot their criminal actions out over the course of days or weeks, who are candidates for execution. While obviously there is something inherently wrong with, say, a serial murderer - something that drives him (or rarely, her) to kill, something they cannot control - it still remains that these people do not act just on impulse. They often invest a great deal of time in the planning of their murders, unlike a person who perhaps is overcome with rage for some reason and commits a crime of passion. They either taunt the police by leaving signs and clues, or they attempt to hide their crimes - both of which are hallmarks of deliberate action.

Society has to discipline itself. This reminds me, somewhat, of that anarchy debate thread - things which could theoretically work don't always hold up well in actual practice. The death penalty is, I think, the best thing we have as a way of preventing the most dangerous, malicious, and unrepentant individuals from being a threat. Humanity may someday reach a point where we can move beyond the practice of killing each other, but that point is far in the distant future.

Personally, I just see the death penalty as more efficient than life in prison. One, it removes a threat from society permanently. Two, it frees up space in our already overcrowded prisons. Three, it's actually kinder, in a sense, than keeping a criminal locked up for years and years in a violent, nasty prison community or in solitary confinement. I figure that once someone is sentenced, by a fair and thorough trial, to lose their life, either by being killed or by being locked in a cage for the rest of it, we might as well at least give them the option of taking the fast way out.

I seriously doubt that the death penalty is actually much of a deterrant to people who are going to commit crimes serious enough that they might be executed, though. In general, those people are far past caring about something like that - either they don't think they'll get caught, or they view it as some kind of martyrdom. Regardless, I still see capital punishment as valid... Like I said, the people who really should be removed from society forever aren't doing anyone any good taking up space in a jail cell.

 

What's the point of keeping murders alive in jail eating away at tax payers money. When you could just use the electric chair and get rid of them easier. I once heard someone say “one state’s trying to get rid of the Death penalty, my states putting in an express lane.” There’s really no point of having people sitting on death row waiting to die for fifteen years. If they have a life sentence there going to die in prison anyway, so why not speed up the process. The death penalty has been an accepted punishment for murders and people who have committed certain other serious crimes since the beginning of Time after the death penalty was put forth and an excepted way of death is prisons among people. It came to America with the first settlers and is described in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The death penalty has been one of the most popular issues for the past 20 years. Most people in the United states want to keep the death penalty, it’s a punishment that is irreversible and much deserved.

When a poll I researched asked whether the penalty for murder should be the death penalty or life in prison with absolutely no parole, 55% said they would rather have it, 25% supported life without parole, and 20% said they were Neutral. Only certain types of murderers are acceptable for a death sentence. However, some people who kill during there parole of a serious crime such as robbery or rape, those who kill more than one person, or those who torture their victims before killing them. Are able to choose death penalty. If your heartless enough to kill or sexually harm another human being for your sick pleasure why should you get to live if the victims didn’t? serving “time” and getting the idea you’ve paid your dept to society, what about those peoples family, that were waiting to see the victim the next day only to find out there in the hospital or found some where lifeless. They never gave the victim a chance before killing or harming them.

Rehabilitation is not the answer for many serious criminals, Since the 1960s, billions of dollars have been spent to rehabilitate criminals in state and federal prisons. In many cases failing. For example, This money has been spent on job skills development (including computers), high school and college education programs, psychiatric therapy, multi-level development programs in art, drama, sports, exercise and gardening, cable, weight lifting. Pop corn and movie Fridays. private weekend-long visits with wives, husbands and children with occasional field trips outside of prison. Those are privileges being given to criminals for committing murder, stealing others possessions, raping or cause bodily harm to another. To these people, prison is just like a paid vacation, you get a free room, a warm bed, hot food, heath care. People that work for a living can’t even get health benefits to help keep there families alive and healthy but these people that have gone out and murdered, and all the benefits and more.

“U. S. Department of Justice study of 11 states released in 1989. It reported that out of the 3,200 criminals convicted of intentional murder who were released from prison in 1983, 415 had been arrested for another murder within three years of release” after their so called “rehabilitation”. “This translates into a 9.7% chance that a released murderer will kill again over the duration of three years. “ there should be a 0% chance that some one will murder again after getting out of prison if you can’t absolutely be sure. They shouldn’t be released from prison. If you’ve murdered once, you’ll murder again, once is more than enough. Thoughts lead to words, words lead to actions. People often forget that. If you’ve thought of it once you’ll think of it again.

wow i think thats my longest post ever....
---Captain

TOP THAT NEPH!

 

I am against double standards.

Coincidentally, I am also against the death penalty. Sure, they killed some one, but do we really want to drop to their level?

"If we murder murderers, why don't we rape rapists?"

 

murders deserve to know what its like to be dead.
and raping rapist is just grose. they deserve to die too.

 

Umm, after you die, you don't know what anythings like.

And as a counterpoint to yout killing rapists: If their rape results in a death, then, and only then would they "deserve" to die. Otherwise, it would be overpunishment for their actions.

 

yes i do think they should die and it wouldn't be an overpunshiment. i bet you wouldn't say that if you were the one who was raped. you'd want those ***holes dead.

have you ever been dead before? if not, how do you know you don't feel anything.

I don't mean to be rude but thats just how i feel.