Capital Punishment: 「Yes or No?」

by **Sanghyeok** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:19 am

Once in a while, perhaps after a particularly disturbing criminal faces trial, public debate over capital punishment increases. Those against capital punishment note that it is inhumane for both executioner and prisoner, unnecessary as a means of punishment, may lead to innocents being mistakenly killed, and overall ineffective in preventing crime. They may also voice support for alternatives such as life in prison. In contrast, supporters claim that this punishment, reserved for terrible crimes as mass murder, is necessary to both act as a deterrent and as a way of justice for the crimes committed. So, what is your opinion regarding capital punishment?

My personal opinion is that I am against capital punishment in general, preferring things such as life in prison or rehabilitation. Sometimes, I may feel briefly disgust towards a mass-murderer or rapist and in that moment wish there was a harsher sentence, however in the majority of cases I would still not support them being executed. However, I do believe that those convicted of highest crimes, war crimes, crimes against humanity may be subject to capital punishment (for example, I support the Nuremburg Trials and the execution of Nazis). My argument is mostly along the lines of the humane side of things, as well as the finality of the punishment and possibility of killing innocent persons. However, this is only my opinion, and you are welcome to discuss below.

by **Ifreann** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:21 am

Killing people is bad and to be avoided wherever possible.

by **Sanghyeok** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:22 am

Ifreann wrote:Killing people is bad and to be avoided wherever possible.

So you would say that you support the first option?

by **North American Environmental Alliance** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:23 am

HELL YEAH! Give the guys who hurt your people hell for what they've done, for some crimes are beyond forgivable.

by **Ifreann** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:27 am

Sanghyeok wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Killing people is bad and to be avoided wherever possible.

So you would say that you support the first option?

Bingo. If someone is actively in the process of harming others, then killing them may well be the only reasonable course of action. But if we have someone in restraints or in custody and under guard, why would we need to kill them?

by **Sanghyeok** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:28 am

Ifreann wrote:
Sanghyeok wrote:
So you would say that you support the first option?

Bingo. If someone is actively in the process of harming others, then killing them may well be the only reasonable course of action. But if we have someone in restraints or in custody and under guard, why would we need to kill them?

Would this apply to war criminals as well, or would you argue for a separate category for them?

by **Necroghastia** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:29 am

Capital punishment is a barbaric practice for those who value vengeance over justice.

by **Kandorith** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:31 am

I support capital punishment# especially against e.g. Terrorist, mass murderers etc.

This will always be a debate and some might view it as barbaric but so far as I know, it can also be closure and a feeling of closure.

by **Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:32 am

Nobody deserves the death penalty It is a crime of humanity

by **Ifreann** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:33 am

Sanghyeok wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Bingo. If someone is actively in the process of harming others, then killing them may well be the only reasonable course of action. But if we have someone in restraints or in custody and under guard, why would we need to kill them?

Would this apply to war criminals as well, or would you argue for a separate category for them?

This would apply to everyone. If someone is doing a war crime right in front of you and the best realistic way of stopping them is shooting them, then shoot them until the war crimes stop. But if we've already got them in the Hague then there's no need to shoot anyone.

by **Ethel mermania** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:34 am

Depends of the crime. Mass murder, human trafficking, slavery... sure. Simple murder probably not.

by **Sanghyeok** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:35 am

Ifreann wrote:
Sanghyeok wrote:
Would this apply to war criminals as well, or would you argue for a separate category for them?

This would apply to everyone. If someone is doing a war crime right in front of you and the best realistic way of stopping them is shooting them, then shoot them until the war crimes stop. But if we've already got them in the Hague then there's no need to shoot anyone.

I see. Then our opinions differ in this way- I generally see death penalty as terrible and inhumane, even for mass murderers. However, I cannot argue the same for war criminals such as Nazis and those in Imperial Japan.

by **Senkaku** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:36 am

Generally I don't think the state should be killing people and should hold itself to a higher standard than the criminals it's punishing, but I'd say there's an exception when it comes to "self-defense" on a state or inter-state level- i.e. major traitors in wartime, war criminals, genocidaires, etc., people who threaten the survival of the state or even arguably of the species, have to be killed.

by **Sanghyeok** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:39 am

Senkaku wrote:Generally I don't think the state should be killing people and should hold itself to a higher standard than the criminals it's punishing, but I'd say there's an exception when it comes to "self-defense" on a state or inter-state level- i.e. major traitors in wartime, war criminals, genocidaires, etc., people who threaten the survival of the state or even arguably of the species, have to be killed.

I would argue that this almost matches my opinion. Mass murders can be rehabilitated and forgiven, with a life sentence. But those who commit crimes against humanity are a different story.

by **Nuroblav** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:40 am

Ifreann wrote:Killing people is bad and to be avoided wherever possible.

^^this.

Also I'll add that it's probably a bad sign if you're giving a state the go-ahead to kill. I'm not saying that you have to have a state to have the death penalty, but I think you can see the point I'm making.

by **Punished UMN** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:42 am

I voted for the second option of the poll. Ordinary crimes even up to murder should not receive the death penalty, but the enormity of crimes such as genocide or the wanton massacre of war prisoners is beyond the pale enough that the people who commit them are too dangerous to be left alive, especially given the political nature of their crimes.

by **Dumb Ideologies** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:44 am

Option 3. There are some crimes where genuine rehabilitation is very unlikely, nothing nearing effective restorative justice can be realistically achieved, and society would not accept that person back unless you go out of your way to create for them a false history to trick people into doing so. In the long run we can work towards minimising usage of prisons for more minor crimes, but the "alternative" to prison for the more abhorrent criminals should in such a case be a much simpler one.

by **Andsed** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:45 am

I am not opposed to it on principle, but I think it should only be used if the people are still active threats. Otherwise I think a life sentence is more than sufficient(provided the person actually serves it all and don´t get out on a loophole of course.)

by **Sanghyeok** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:47 am

Nuroblav wrote:I'm not saying that you have to have a state to have the death penalty, but I think you can see the point I'm making.

My opposition to the death penalty is more of a humane issue, but are you arguing that the problem is giving too many powers to the state? If so, would you argue that a non-state entity should be able to have a policy of capital punishment.

by **Punished UMN** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:50 am

Dumb Ideologies wrote:Option 3. There are some crimes where genuine rehabilitation is very unlikely, nothing nearing effective restorative justice can be realistically achieved, and society would not accept that person back unless you go out of your way to create for them a false history to trick people into doing so. In the long run we can work towards minimising usage of prisons for more minor crimes, but the "alternative" to prison for the more abhorrent criminals should in such a case be a much simpler one.

Whether society accepts them back isn't necessary for rehabilitation, and in fact lack of acceptance can be helpful to rehabilitation. Nevertheless, rehabilitative policies used in the past have shown that some degree of acceptance of rehabilitated criminals is possible.

by **Bala Mantre** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:55 am

In America we have the 1st highest prison population and also the 1st highest crime rate according to the CIA handbook.
I believe that the death penalty can be used for any criminal because it helps leviate people away from such crimes in the first place.
Why was the Mongolian Empire so great that they say a maiden teenager could walk from one tip of the empire to the other with a gold plate on her head and not get touched or robbed once?
Because death came if you messed with the rules.
It would help alot of things

by **The Greater Midlands** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:58 am

If you killed someone, then you are effectively painlessly/ painfully killing them, resulting in pain for no more than say half an hour. Is this really punishment, or should you jail the worst offenders for life?

by **Disgraces** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:09 am

Yes, but only for murder, even if the murderer was mentally ill.

by **Necroghastia** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:11 am

Bala Mantre wrote:In America we have the 1st highest prison population and also the 1st highest crime rate according to the CIA handbook.
I believe that the death penalty can be used for any criminal

Anyone? So people who have drugs on them should be executed? People imprisoned for nonviolent offenses deserve to have their life taken away?

because it helps leviate people away from such crimes in the first place.

Source?

And this isn't even getting into innocents on death row - a rate which would surely skyrocket if your ideals were implemented.

by **State of Turelisa** » Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:11 am

Capital punishment isn't the right term for judicial killing. The phrase death penalty is proper, since it is the forfeiture of life for taking life in vain.
Neither is the death penalty 'vengeance'. The satisfaction that society feels when a criminal is executed is due to the fulfilment of justice. The forfeiture of life for taking a life, and the reassurance with which this deterrence eases the former moral panic that ensues in society where lives are ended by murder.
Moral panic is generated by other crimes against humanity, which belong to depravity of moral character. Aggravated rape. Incest. Paedophilia. Bestiality. All crimes for which depraved individuals receive arbitrary sentences and, having been freed, commit once again, because they can't but act according to their immutable, depraved will.
The death penalty should be a pragmatic way to deal with all recidivism. The system of rehabilitation and arbitrary spells of imprisonment guarantees dangerous and antisocial criminals the freedom to commit serious crimes and denies mercy to their future victims.