• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

DO good citizens have to suffer?????

skg

New member
Joined
Dec 2, 2005
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
why should we take mercy on criminals who don't care about other people lives and rights?

should the community have to suffer because of those who desecrate ( good people ) human rights.



here an example

if a village or a city had a plague. the smartest solution is to contain the city ( to protect other cities ) even if there are many inhabitants who still not affected by the plague.
 
Same thing as the cancer analogy. If the nation is an organism, then crime is a cancer infecting it. So you treat it and if that fails you cut out the diseased area.

Reason that policy isn't widely advocated is that, like a medical procedure it is cold, logical, and pragmatic. Many people are impassioned, illogical and overly sentimental and just don't see things that way.

You also have to remember the treatment part, crime is a choice that must be punished, but you can first reduce the likelihood of it occurring by treating social problems like unemployment, poor education, healthcare, etc. Kind of like an immunization, though you'll never 'cure' crime, just have to keep on top of it.

That was a much more reasoned post, much better than my last in Death Penalty.
 
You are right

but don't you think that taking mercy on criminals will encourage others to make crimes
( because the punishment isn't enough to stop them)

to clearly my point
here is a man who wroks hard to get a Job, then he still struggling and working harder to keep up his Job. after 40 years of the hard work , he barley buy a house ( if he is Lucky)

the other man look throw that option to do just like that man .
and there is another thought : if he steel the money of the hard working men, he will get rich fast. do what ever he want in his life( and if he got caught, he will got a sentence of about 5 years. more or less.( 5 years in prison with a lot of money after these years or working hard for all your life with fear of getting fired or getting robbed)


which choice do you think the other man will choose?
 
Wow, what color are the clouds guys.

Provide an example please of the death penalty working as a deterent.
 
i am not suggesting death penalty for rubbery

i am just saying if we care so much about helping criminals to be good people we may succeed but, soon we will face an increasing number of people who do the same crime( they are not afraid of the punishment or the punishment is not hard enough so they think it's worth to risk)
 
In your second example of the thief, an effective government with a strong stance on crime could put him in jail as a punishment, seize the things he stole and return them or even take his property to an equal value to the victims loss, they could act to create more opportunities for him to earn a legal living (maybe he could use his time in jail productively and work for some qualifications). Some people however will always be in a minority unable to function within societies rules, regretably they must be written off as failures. That is why prison incarceration should be kept at low cost to the state and the taxpayer.
The death penalty cannot be applied for minor crimes that do not harm the individual, if it were aside from the logistics of killing large numbers, you'd almost certainly run the risk of a liberal sympathy revolt, and they would halt all death penalties. It must be saved for the most serious crimes against people, murder, violent assault depending on the victims injuries, some cases of rape and child abuse, all the usual dregs of humanity. It cannot be applied arbitrarily.
Try to ignore millsy, he's a militant liberal (an, amusing oxymoron), if he came home one day to find his male relatives murdered and criminals gang-raping his female relatives of all ages, before paralyzing him in an assault, anally-raping him, stealing his car and his beer, and finishing off by running down a dozen school children then killing eight police in a shootout, he would still oppose giving them the death penalty. What'cha say millsy?;)
 
I agree with you Mr JamesRichards

the punishment should be equal to the crime. also it;s important to look up where do these crimes initiated and why?


i wrote this thread upon looking around to many cases which they start to happen daily, after years of decreasing the punishment cruelty.


one case is happening to a drug dealer who got a sentence of 7 years.( of course this man help to ruin many peoples families and lives)

he said i have a big house and a few millions, when i get out i will be a good man . ( i don't need to risk no more, because i got money for the rest of my live) he speaks the truth.


another issue :
more than 20 years a go there is a crime in my city which happend more frequently. the crime was so cruel and mean but , the sentence was putting in jail for a few years. ( you know not every one got caught)

the crime was kidnapping children and sexually assult on them. ( they destroy these children lives and their psychically.

people have complained about that , so they modify the sentence to death penalty , they do it in such area where they usually make these sentences.people can watch if they want to.

what was the result. in few weeks we almost never heard of any case of kidnapping.
we save many children by being cruel to who ever may think in committing these crimes.


is saving these children worthy enough to make death sentences on those twisted criminals.
 
skg said:
why should we take mercy on criminals who don't care about other people lives and rights?

should the community have to suffer because of those who desecrate ( good people ) human rights.



here an example

if a village or a city had a plague. the smartest solution is to contain the city ( to protect other cities ) even if there are many inhabitants who still not affected by the plague.

I don't agree. You didn't convey your thoughts in a clear and understandable way. I'm confused
 
Unfair said:
I don't agree. You didn't convey your thoughts in a clear and understandable way. I'm confused

Seconded. What are you actually saying, skg?
 
I can completetely understand you guys wanting to cut the murder rates, but I'm not sure the DP does this:

Soucres from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/art...ATES WITH THE DEATH PENALTY V. STATES WITHOUT
DETERRENCE: U.S. Murder Rate Declined in 2004, Even As Death Penalty Use Dropped
Even as the use of the death penalty continued to decline in the United States, the number of murders and the national murder rate dropped in 2004. According to the recently released FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2004, the nation's murder rate fell by 3.3%, declining to 5.5 murders per 100,000 people in 2004. By region, the Northeast, which accounts for less than 1% of all U.S. executions, continued to have the nation's lowest murder rate, 4.2. The Midwest had a murder rate of 4.7, and the murder rate in the West was 5.7. The South, which has carried out more than 80% of all U.S. executions, again had the nation's highest murder rate, 6.6. (FBI Uniform Crime Report 2004, released October 2005). In 2004, the number of executions, the number of death sentences, and the size of death row all declined compared to 2003. See Deterrence and Executions.

Murders in New York City Reach Historic Lows Without Use of the Death Penalty
Homicide figures for New York City show that the number of murders in 2005 may fall below 500, a figure that would be the fewest since 1961 and would bring the city's murder rate below the rate for the nation as a whole. So far this year, random murders and murders committed during robberies and burglaries have also declined. Experts note that both declines appear to be largely attributable to a greater police presence, fewer guns, and the decrease in random violence in the city that came with the waning of the crack epidemic. In Manhattan, the annual number of murders recently dipped below 100 for the first time since the 19th century. (New York Times, August 7, 2005). New York City's steady murder-rate decline began after 1990, five years before the state restored the death penalty. The decline in murders has continued since the law was struck down as unconstitutional in 2004. See Deterrence.

And even IF the death penalty was a detterrent, what about the risk of killing innocent people? Why is killing someone seen as an answer to killing someone, particularly when you realise how expensive the DP sentence and related appeals are? Woldn't it be better to increase prison sentences andtackle the root causes of crime, such as poverty and boredom?
 
Last edited:
Enola/Alone said:
Seconded. What are you actually saying, skg?
As I understand it he was using plague as an analogy
JamesRichards said:
Same thing as the cancer analogy. If the nation is an organism, then crime is a cancer infecting it. So you treat it and if that fails you cut out the diseased area.
Enola/Alone said:
I can completetely understand you guys wanting to cut the murder rates, but I'm not sure the DP does this:
It doesn't, well known not to. But it satisfies a desire for punishment fitting the crime in serious and violent cases, and encourages people that the law treats criminals with the same contempt as they treat their victims. You're right it's expensive, though it could be made more cost-effective, but the satisfaction it gives the broader society in justice being done is worth the cost.

I understand the feelings about pedophiles, however if you have a mandatory death penalty for child abuse and rape you'll cause more criminals to murder their victims because they feel they have nothing to lose in doing so. Better to save it for serial offenders.
 
I hope that you are right about the relationship of forcing death penalty and the increasing number of crimes.


but what i see in my real life ( that the number of crimes has been growing as the death penalty and cruel sentence are almost not applied).


what made me ask this question in the first place - i have watched an interview with former prisoner ( he is a good man now ) he use to rob houses and stores.

he said i got huge mounts of money( millions ), but i was shocked when i got i sentence for 10 years in jail.

that is make me think ( there are a lot of people with low income to do so and risk 10 years in prison ( which actually a vacation from work) if they got caught.
also i met with someone work in prison, he said to me that prisoners got every attention that the free man out side can't get that easily. they got variety of food, drinks, new furniture which the people who work in presion can't get.

shouldn't the prison be more cruel or even a place that someone don't want to come back to.
 
Last edited:
skg said:
but what i see in my real life ( that the number of crimes has been growing as the death penalty and cruel sentence are almost not applied).
Where do you live? Crime rates are falling everywhere, murder rates are falling everywhere. However news coverage has increased dramatically giving people the perception that crime and violent crime are on the rise.


also i met with someone work in prison, he said to me that prisoners got every attention that the free man out side can't get that easily. they got variety of food, drinks, new furniture which the people who work in presion can't get.

Most of the people in jail are poor on the outside. Even given that I doubt any survey would lead you to believe they like life inside more. Although some might say this, it's a small minority


shouldn't the prison be more cruel or even a place that someone don't want to come back to.

It is.
 
millsy said:
However news coverage has increased dramatically giving people the perception that crime and violent crime are on the rise.


I agree with you on that

news coverage can deceive someone ( knowing lot of details about most of crimes is giving the feeling that crimes are increasing).

I will try to get more statistics about crime rates to be sure about that point.
 
Back
Top Bottom