NationStates

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:53 am**

EXECUTION, now!

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:59 am**

Malland wrote:
Keronians wrote:The death penalty cannot be justified, at any level.

It is more costly than a life sentence, so, no, to all the people who say that it wastes taxpayer money. To those who think, well, why don't we just cut the appeals process?, that would many more innocents to the chopping block.

Moving on to the point touched upon earlier, innocents are always, regardless of which country we are talking about, killed. That cannot be justified.

Nobody has the right to take another's life. This applies to the State as well.

Lastly, the main purpose of it, deterrence, has been proven to not work.

So someone can walk into child care and pour petrol on the kids and set them alight without getting a penalty?

Better ask yourself

You can respect the life of deranged criminals as much as you want, but just remember, they will not return the favor when they see you.

Death penalty =/= sole penalty.

Such a person would (most probably) be getting life in prison without parole.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:59 am**

Tecktatee wrote:EXECUTION, now!

+1

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 4:59 am**

Northern Dominus wrote:
Vistulange wrote:I support the death penalty. I live in a country where terrorism is rampant (Turkey) and we have the leader of the PKK (Kurdish Worker's Party) sitting in a 5-star hotel, er, prison. We have to hang him. Mass murderers and rapists should also be subject to it.
Okay. So say modern law gets pushed aside and they go straight to the head of the line without so much as a re-trial or hearing. How would they be executed then? What method? Public or private viewing?

Public viewing in the case of terrorists, by hanging, as it used to be before our government abolished the death penalty. Rape is something unforgivable, perhaps more than murder, because the victim's life tends to change drastically after such an assault. Mass murder is similar to terrorism, in my books, because it tends to make people afraid and untrusting of the state, which is not a good thing.

As for the terrorist leader we're holding? He doesn't deserve a re-trial or hearing, at all. If you let him out onto the streets of our capital, I can assure you that citizens would lynch him and hang his corpse on a stick infront of the Grand National Assembly for good measure. So, in his case, a clean death would be cleaner.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:02 am**

It's also interesting to note that developed countries tend to have abolished the death penalty.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:03 am**

ATTENTION DUELISTS wrote:What do people think about the issue of capital punishment?

I think it's wrong, as a matter of principle. I would still think it's wrong if it were an excellent deterrent, were cheaper than alternatives, and had no risk whatsoever of death to innocent people.

Punishment is not just about providing a penalty that is proportionate to the crime; otherwise, it would be okay, for especially egregious criminals, to, for example, torture them to death. Punishment is about providing an appropriate penalty for a crime, an individual particularized criminal act, while at the same time recognizing the intrinsic worth of the person. I don't think that recognition is compatible with the complete destruction of a person by execution.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:04 am**

Unilisia wrote:
R Ev0lution wrote:Oh, like how it's ridiculous to execute people for killing innocent civilians, and then, when we ourselves kill innocent civilians, turn around and say "It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal"?

It's impossible to argue with someone who doesn't see the finer points of revising the prison system.

Seriously, you can think whatever you want about the justice system. Except it's these two statements which piss me off:

Pretty much every human society has committed atrocities far worse than the death of one man. It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal.

If someone is executed for a crime that people think that person did, and it is discovered that they were wrong later and get the actual person who committed the crime, it's one small mess up.

ALL I WANT FROM YOU is for you to admit -- openly, clearly, and without reservation -- that:
1) Innocent people are sometimes executed for crimes they didn't commit.
2) While it may or may not be a good thing when a murderer is executed, it is DEFINITELY NOT a good thing when the justice system executes an innocent person.
3) The killing of innocent people -- even within the context of a legalized execution -- is always a big deal.
4) It may have been inappropriate of you to be facetious when discussing the lives of wrongfully-executed innocents.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:04 am**

Soheran wrote:
ATTENTION DUELISTS wrote:What do people think about the issue of capital punishment?

I think it's wrong, as a matter of principle. I would still think it's wrong if it were an excellent deterrent and were cheaper than alternatives.

Punishment is not just about providing a penalty that is proportionate to the crime; otherwise, it would be okay, for especially egregious criminals, to, for example, torture them to death. Punishment is about providing an appropriate penalty for a crime, an individual particularized criminal act, while at the same time recognizing the intrinsic worth of the person. I don't think that recognition is compatible with the complete destruction of a person by execution.

A person isn't worth a dime if he hasn't thought of the worth of the tens he murdered.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:05 am**

Vistulange wrote:
Northern Dominus wrote: Okay. So say modern law gets pushed aside and they go straight to the head of the line without so much as a re-trial or hearing. How would they be executed then? What method? Public or private viewing?

Public viewing in the case of terrorists, by hanging, as it used to be before our government abolished the death penalty. Rape is something unforgivable, perhaps more than murder, because the victim's life tends to change drastically after such an assault. Mass murder is similar to terrorism, in my books, because it tends to make people afraid and untrusting of the state, which is not a good thing.

As for the terrorist leader we're holding? He doesn't deserve a re-trial or hearing, at all. If you let him out onto the streets of our capital, I can assure you that citizens would lynch him and hang his corpse on a stick infront of the Grand National Assembly for good measure. So, in his case, a clean death would be cleaner.

What the people would do to him if he were to go on the streets is entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not he should be hanged.

Also, you do realise that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent for the kind of crimes it punishes?

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:05 am**

Unilisia wrote:
R Ev0lution wrote:Oh, like how it's ridiculous to execute people for killing innocent civilians, and then, when we ourselves kill innocent civilians, turn around and say "It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal"?

It's impossible to argue with someone who doesn't see the finer points of revising the prison system.

That must be why we are struggling to discuss this with you.

As Einstein said, Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:05 am**

Vistulange wrote:A person isn't worth a dime if he hasn't thought of the worth of the tens he murdered.

Something like this, I think, tends to be the attitude underlying the death penalty, and that is part of why I'm against it. The worth of persons is not conditional.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:17 am**

I'm against it for the simple fact that I am against death itself. It is an evil Ziono-Freemasonic device orchestrated by the Illuminati and utilized to control the populace through fear. We must push legislation through to outlaw death and stop playing into these games.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:26 am**

ATTENTION DUELISTS wrote:What do people think about the issue of capital punishment?

Generally opposed. Not too stressed about it, if it follows from due process. Consider "due process" to be approximately as much legal hassle as the hassle of imprisonment for the term of natural life. Killing prisoners should only be done if that (a) causes the prisoner less suffering, or (b) that demonstrates a greater disincentive than life imprisonment. Capital punishment should never be the cheap option.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:27 am**

Unilisia wrote:
R Ev0lution wrote:Oh, like how it's ridiculous to execute people for killing innocent civilians, and then, when we ourselves kill innocent civilians, turn around and say "It's only a big deal if you make it a big deal"?

It's impossible to argue with someone who doesn't see the finer points of revising the prison system.

Perhaps if you were more open minded and would entertain the possibility that your vision of a revised penal system is not objectively correct or superior you'd have an easier time arguing with people who disagree with you. Just a little food for thought.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:31 am**

Ailiailia wrote:
ATTENTION DUELISTS wrote:What do people think about the issue of capital punishment?

Generally opposed. Not too stressed about it, if it follows from due process. Consider "due process" to be approximately as much legal hassle as the hassle of imprisonment for the term of natural life. Killing prisoners should only be done if that (a) causes the prisoner less suffering, or (b) that demonstrates a greater disincentive than life imprisonment. Capital punishment should never be the cheap option.

Now allowing prisoners to opt, without coercion, for assisted suicide I could accept.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:38 am**

ATTENTION DUELISTS wrote:What do people think about the issue of capital punishment?

While I do acknowledge and feel disappointment over the fact that there are indeed cases in which innocent people are wrongly tried, convicted and executed for crimes they didn't commit, I'm well and truly not convinced at all about the statement that "capital punishment doesn't deter crime". Well, if it doesn't deter crime, then what can it possibly do?

I do think that homocidal madmen like Anders Breivik and Nidal Hasan obviously wouldn't be deterred by something like the death penalty because, figuratively speaking, they're "beyond the point of no return" in terms of their mental health. But really? How can people say that capital punishment doesn't deter crime, full stop? What if there existed a hypothetical situation where even the most minor of crimes such as stealing a piece of cake or calling someone an "asshole" in the streets was punishable by the death penalty? Will the death penalty not deter crime in that case?

In any case, my vote goes to #2. I live in Australia where they don't have the death penalty, so I'm not as well versed in the issue as you guys in the United States. According to http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 , California has spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since its reinstatement in 1978 - $308 million per each of the 13 executions which took place), and spends $184 million on it per year. However, much of it is clogged up in judiciary costs.

Now, I can't help but wonder..."Why?" Breivik is obviously guilty, with so many eyewitnesses who have given direct accounts of his actions in court. Nidal Hasan has had eyewitnesses speak against him in court. There's no question at all that both men are guilty, so why not just give them a single trial and to the gallows with them? Why is there a need to build up such unnecessary costs? Why must we continue to refrain from what is seen by many as a just punishment for a capital offence for which there is an utterly overwhelming amount of evidence? Are such cases so similar to cases for which false findings or a lack of adequate evidence lead to the execution of an innocent person, that we must remain stagnate and grant murderers such as Breivik and Hasan amnesty through life sentences?

By the way, Breivik's sentence won't even be a life sentence. It'll be 21 years, in accordance to Norwegian law, according to numerous articles published in April.
Twenty. One. Years. For killing 77 people. Go figure.

Ha, Breivik's "Life sentence". 21 years for for 77 people equals less than 3 months in jail per person he killed. Really nice justice system these "people" have.

As for capital punishments, I only think this should be a sentence where they have solid evidence for at least 2 murders, which would drastically lower the amount of murdered innocents.
For single murders, Life in jail, and also prisoners should not be sitting in their cells all day, they should be working to earn money to pay back their victims (and a small fraction for themselves, as an incentive to work harder).

I've heard the insane argument that "If you execute murders (or assist the execution of murderers) you will be a murderer yourself".
To respond to that I would say that by that logic giving fines to thieves is theft and putting kidnappers in jail is kidnapping. Eye for eye tooth for tooth.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:53 am**

Unilisia wrote:Anyone given a life sentence should just be killed, since they're obviously not going back to society anytime soon and are wasting taxpayer money. Then the extra money saved from all those prisoners can be used to reform the prison system so it actually functions and rehabilitates.

^^This

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:53 am**

Moving Forward Inc wrote:
ATTENTION DUELISTS wrote:What do people think about the issue of capital punishment?

While I do acknowledge and feel disappointment over the fact that there are indeed cases in which innocent people are wrongly tried, convicted and executed for crimes they didn't commit, I'm well and truly not convinced at all about the statement that "capital punishment doesn't deter crime". Well, if it doesn't deter crime, then what can it possibly do?

I do think that homocidal madmen like Anders Breivik and Nidal Hasan obviously wouldn't be deterred by something like the death penalty because, figuratively speaking, they're "beyond the point of no return" in terms of their mental health. But really? How can people say that capital punishment doesn't deter crime, full stop? What if there existed a hypothetical situation where even the most minor of crimes such as stealing a piece of cake or calling someone an "asshole" in the streets was punishable by the death penalty? Will the death penalty not deter crime in that case?

In any case, my vote goes to #2. I live in Australia where they don't have the death penalty, so I'm not as well versed in the issue as you guys in the United States. According to http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 , California has spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since its reinstatement in 1978 - $308 million per each of the 13 executions which took place), and spends $184 million on it per year. However, much of it is clogged up in judiciary costs.

Now, I can't help but wonder..."Why?" Breivik is obviously guilty, with so many eyewitnesses who have given direct accounts of his actions in court. Nidal Hasan has had eyewitnesses speak against him in court. There's no question at all that both men are guilty, so why not just give them a single trial and to the gallows with them? Why is there a need to build up such unnecessary costs? Why must we continue to refrain from what is seen by many as a just punishment for a capital offence for which there is an utterly overwhelming amount of evidence? Are such cases so similar to cases for which false findings or a lack of adequate evidence lead to the execution of an innocent person, that we must remain stagnate and grant murderers such as Breivik and Hasan amnesty through life sentences?

By the way, Breivik's sentence won't even be a life sentence. It'll be 21 years, in accordance to Norwegian law, according to numerous articles published in April.
Twenty. One. Years. For killing 77 people. Go figure.

Ha, Breivik's "Life sentence". 21 years for for 77 people equals less than 3 months in jail per person he killed.

With the possibility of indefinite detention so long as he is a danger to society.

Really nice justice system these "people" have.

Of course, if he's kept in jail for life, that might not even be one year per person killed. Perhaps we should look into necromancy so we can get a ratio more acceptable to you, perhaps? Or should we just shoot him, which would give us zero years, zero months, zero days, and maybe a few minutes per person killed?

As for capital punishments, I only think this should be a sentence where they have solid evidence for at least 2 murders, which would drastically lower the amount of murdered innocents.
For single murders, Life in jail, and also prisoners should not be sitting in their cells all day, they should be working to earn money to pay back their victims (and a small fraction for themselves, as an incentive to work harder).

Why on Earth would you care about earning pennies when you're going to be in jail for life?

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:55 am**

Unilisia wrote:Anyone given a life sentence should just be killed, since they're obviously not going back to society anytime soon and are wasting taxpayer money. Then the extra money saved from all those prisoners can be used to reform the prison system so it actually functions and rehabilitates.

Actually, it's cheaper to incarcerate criminals for life than to execute them.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:57 am**

Jafas United wrote:
Unilisia wrote:Anyone given a life sentence should just be killed, since they're obviously not going back to society anytime soon and are wasting taxpayer money. Then the extra money saved from all those prisoners can be used to reform the prison system so it actually functions and rehabilitates.

Actually, it's cheaper to incarcerate criminals for life than to execute them.

You missed that Unilisia just wants to take people outback and shoot them rather than making sure they're guilty first. Because when they kill an innocent person, they must be put to death in the cheapest manner possible, but when we kill an innocent person, oh well, everyone makes mistakes.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 5:58 am**

Not counting extraneous costs that would also be incurred by a prisoner going through the legal system (although those can go down too), and getting life in prison, the death penalty should have a price tag similar to euthanizing any other animal.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:01 am**

Sigoynere wrote:Not counting extraneous costs that would also be incurred by a prisoner going through the legal system (although those can go down too), and getting life in prison, the death penalty should have a price tag similar to euthanizing any other animal.

And if you discount everything but the price of bootlaces, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were actually remarkably cheap.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:08 am**

Ifreann wrote:
Moving Forward Inc wrote:As for capital punishments, I only think this should be a sentence where they have solid evidence for at least 2 murders, which would drastically lower the amount of murdered innocents.
For single murders, Life in jail, and also prisoners should not be sitting in their cells all day, they should be working to earn money to pay back their victims (and a small fraction for themselves, as an incentive to work harder).

Why on Earth would you care about earning pennies when you're going to be in jail for life?

A simple jail cell with nothing but a bed has got to be boring. If prisons had stores where you could buy stuff to add to your jail cell (TV's, Computers, Internet) and all the profits went to the victims, and you could earn $1.00 an hour from working to pay back the victim with bonuses for working hard, there will be a lot of incentive to work really hard, buy real hard, and then rest/entertain yourself hard. It will also mean the victims will get more compensation.
At first of course they will try to protest about the 1 dollar pay and having to work hard for more, but hours sitting in a room has to change that.

I also think working hard to buy things also gives people some sort work ethic and moral backbone.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:10 am**

Moving Forward Inc wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Why on Earth would you care about earning pennies when you're going to be in jail for life?

A simple jail cell with nothing but a bed has got to be boring. If prisons had stores where you could buy stuff to add to your jail cell (TV's, Computers, Internet) and all the profits went to the victims, and you could earn $1.00 an hour from working to pay back the victim with bonuses for working hard, there will be a lot of incentive to work really hard, buy real hard, and then rest/entertain yourself hard. It will also mean the victims will get more compensation.
At first of course they will try to protest about the 1 dollar pay and having to work hard for more, but hours sitting in a room has to change that.

I also think working hard to buy things also gives people some sort work ethic and moral backbone.

Yeah. They tried giving people shit wages in the Gilded Age, too, when the average laborer worked for about 16 hours a day.

Nobody really bothered buying things to fancy up the home or entertain themselves, since they basically lived at work and lived paycheck-to-paycheck.

Posted: **Thu Jul 12, 2012 6:12 am**

Vistulange wrote:I support the death penalty. I live in a country where terrorism is rampant (Turkey) and we have the leader of the PKK (Kurdish Worker's Party) sitting in a 5-star hotel, er, prison. We have to hang him. Mass murderers and rapists should also be subject to it.

Ahaha, death penalty would be a present for him. Let's release him in the Taksim Square and let him be lynched.

NationStates

The Death Penalty