Rationales for Death Penalty

[Ima Troll]

Would you suppose that suffering is worse than death? I believe that many would (at least slightly) disagree with this. If you got hurt would you rather just die to end the pain?

suffering is worse than death if, and only if, it permanently exceeds the individual's tolerable pain thresholds

What's worth more, the absence of suffering or the existence of life?

this is dependent on the severity of the suffering in contrast to the quality of life; i believe that there are some cases wherein a person should have the right to die

i have experienced suffering myself that had vastly exceeded my natural pain thresholds, which doctors were not able to immediately alleviate through pain killers; one of my organs had been damaged; luckily, i eventually pulled out of the excessive pain after several years, so there was hope for me; however, if those pain levels had been permanent, i would have fought for my right to die; basically, ive been there, and im looking at it from the other side

it is also arguable that those who resist putting people to death, in the presence of excessive suffering, lack religious faith in life after death; some who believe that there is life after death may actually embrace allowing somebody to pass into the next realm

They do not "breed" capitalism, it was clearly stated that as a "Capitalist" he would prefer the cheaper way to deal with criminals.

i would hope that capitalists would be more focused on new ways to make money, through their own personal sacrifice and effort, versus simply saving money at somebody else's laborious expense

 

[DeeJayH]

do you have sympathy for people who are not eligible for the death penalty?

NOT ADULTS, most definitely not repeat offenders

the last that i had heard (and this was about ten years ago) is that it costs about $40,000 per year to house a single prison inmate; likewise, for a ten year stay for a single inmate, it costs $400,000; thats much more than the average cost of living; 25 years in prison would then be about $1 million for a single inmate; multiply this number by how many people are currently incarcerated in the US

a death sentence incurs well over $1 million in costs bourne by the tax payer

i likewise suggest that since many criminals do not recieve the death penalty, the other criminals who have shorter terms (5 years for example) are released in a fraction of that time, and are therefore not adequately reformed for their crimes; then they commit more crimes; the prisons are vastly overcrowded after a catch-22 cycle; crime is rampant on the streets, because we like to keep deathrow inmates alive

there is no reform going on in prison
when one goes to prison, all they do is pump weights, file frivolous lawsuits and learn how to be a better criminal

 

[DeeJayH]

i would hope that capitalists would be more focused on new ways to make money, through their own personal sacrifice and effort, versus simply saving money at somebody else's laborious expense

increasing profits is the same thing as cost cutting when it is on a balance sheet
more money in the pocket is all that matters, regardless of how it is achieved/earned :mrgreen:

 

[Ima Troll]

NOT ADULTS, most definitely not repeat offenders

unfortunately, this does not actually alleviate crime as a preventive

a death sentence incurs well over $1 million in costs bourne by the tax payer

how much of this goes to lawyers fees? where exactly does this money go?

there is no reform going on in prison
when one goes to prison, all they do is pump weights, file frivolous lawsuits and learn how to be a better criminal

it then becomes necessary to implement reform somewhere

my personal perspective is that every prisoner should be placed in solitary confinement in a 4x4 dark room for the entire duration of their stay, much like is done in a warcamp, so as to make the prison stay more arduous; hence, a three month stay in prison would potentially be more severe than your common three year sentence; this is what i mean by reform; i believe that this would practically solve overcrowding problems, because criminals wouldnt want to visit jail twice; or even once for that matter

 

[DeeJayH]

my personal perspective is that every prisoner should be placed in solitary confinement in a 4x4 dark room for the entire duration of their stay, much like is done in a warcamp, so as to make the prison stay more arduous; hence, a three month stay in prison would potentially be more severe than your common three year sentence; this is what i mean by reform; i believe that this would practically solve overcrowding problems, because criminals wouldnt want to visit jail twice; or even once for that matter

the American Criminal Liberties Union would never let it happen

and that is not reform by any definition of the word
you are depicting harsher punishment than current incarceration allows for
that being said, i have no problem with.
small cell, no liberties, and a bucket to go to the bathroom in
if you act like an animal, you get treated like an animal
focus on saving the children to prevent things from happening to the next generation
write off current criminals like a tax deduction
the investment will be returned in spades

 

[Ima Troll]

increasing profits is the same thing as cost cutting when it is on a balance sheet

true, but life is not just paper

more money in the pocket is all that matters,

theres nothing else that matters more?

regardless of how it is achieved/earned :mrgreen:

is any means valid when making money?

 

[Ima Troll]

the American Criminal Liberties Union would never let it happen

true; im just throwing out a wild idea that i know would never be implemented; even though i think that it would work to a large degree; im just getting in the way of criminal liberty though

and that is not reform by any definition of the word

not reform in the classic sense, no; i understand; but nonetheless a corrective measure; i view any crime as anti-relational against society; thus, i believe that isolation for criminals is the best bet

you are depicting harsher punishment than current incarceration allows for
that being said, i have no problem with.
small cell, no liberties, and a bucket to go to the bathroom in
if you act like an animal, you get treated like an animal

im not suggesting beating the criminal with clubs; rather, im suggesting simply a complete cessation of contact from people; let the criminal live with their own thoughts

focus on saving the children to prevent things from happening to the next generation

i agree; although some measure needs to be taken with offenders too, i believe

write off current criminals like a tax deduction
the investment will be returned in spades

up to a point; but an exclusively economic focus doesnt actually deter crime

 

[Liberal Pot Smoker]

why would you take someone, with a ridiculous name like that, seriously?

You take me seriously because even on pot I can still conduct a better arguement then you.

 

[Liberal Pot Smoker]

So I imagine if someone like Hitler was alive you would be pleading for his life?Get off the ****,it rots your brains.Apparently drug use has effected your thinking ability since you can not figure out why people do heinous things like commit murder.People commit murder for selfish reasons,greed, hatred,or entertainment.

If Hitler was alive today, it would be immoral to take his life. Let him spend the rest of his life in jail and try to rehibilitation. The same is if they find Saddam guilty in his trial it will be immoral to give him the death penalty. And drugs dont affect my brain, only conservative ignoramuses like jamesrage affect my thinking.

 

[DeeJayH]

You take me seriously because even on pot I can still conduct a better arguement then you.

If Hitler was alive today, it would be immoral to take his life. Let him spend the rest of his life in jail and try to rehibilitation. The same is if they find Saddam guilty in his trial it will be immoral to give him the death penalty. And drugs dont affect my brain, only conservative ignoramuses like jamesrage affect my thinking.

:rofl :2rofll: :rofl

too fricking funny

 

[jamesrage]

If Hitler was alive today, it would be immoral to take his life. Let him spend the rest of his life in jail and try to rehibilitation. The same is if they find Saddam guilty in his trial it will be immoral to give him the death penalty.

Damn you are hillarious.

And drugs dont affect my brain,

You keep telling your self that and perhaps one day when you are forty years old working at a McDonalds as a janitor you will still be in your delusion.

 

[DeeJayH]

Right, drugs make the brain not work. That's why Sigmund Freud, universally viewed as one of the most brilliant men to work in the psychiatric field was a hardcore cokehead. Oh, not mentioning that your beloved Bush loved the yayo also.

Tell me, what exactly do you know about weed? I'm assuming little, if anything, and this would make your opinions invalid because you are uninformed.

I'm a liberal pot smoker, and even when I'm stoned I'll bet 9 out of 10 people on this forum would agree that I'm still a WHOLE LOT smarter than you, and this is for a few simple reasons.

I am motivated by logic and reason. You are motivated by rage and bloodlust. Weed doesn't change that, cause when I'm stoned I'm still motivated by logic and reason, and you're always motivated solely by rage, bitterness, and bloodlust.

And proof of this is I'll bet that you are now going to assume that since I've admitted to being liberal, my opinions don't count. This is not a logical argument. Let's go over the thought process behind your "logic". I am a liberal, and thus I disagree with you, which is essentially all you know about my political stances since I typically make an effort to avoid you, since talking to you kills far more of my brain cells than smoking pot ever will. So all you know is that I disagree with you, and from that you draw the conclusion that my opinion is not valid. Thus your logic is "He disagrees with me, and thus his opinions are not valid." this logic is flawed on many fronts, first, since we're speaking of matters of opinions, as long as the one holding the opinion is reasonably informed (and I am quite certain that I am more informed than you are on this issue), one's opinions are indeed valid, and also believing that differences from you invalidate someone, that would imply that you view yourself as infallible, and if you were this God like creature whose beliefs were indeed infallible, I'll bet you could've gotten a much better job than being a janitor.

:2rofll:
you just wait future burnout
you will regret it, like everybody else who did it does
I used to smoke pot when i was a young idiot to
i am much sharper off the dope than on
hopefully you will realize that before your brain is fried

 

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by galenrox
Right, drugs make the brain not work. That's why Sigmund Freud, universally viewed as one of the most brilliant men to work in the psychiatric field was a hardcore cokehead. Oh, not mentioning that your beloved Bush loved the yayo also.

I do not trust shrink.Bush's past drug habit proably explains his liberal fiscal policies and his stand on illegal immigration.

Tell me, what exactly do you know about weed? I'm assuming little, if anything, and this would make your opinions invalid because you are uninformed.

I was not always a conservative.Just like you I was a idiot pot smoker who thought I will never give up weed.

I'm a liberal pot smoker, and even when I'm stoned I'll bet 9 out of 10 people on this forum would agree that I'm still a WHOLE LOT smarter than you, and this is for a few simple reasons.

Nine out of ten memberss are not pot smokers so your argument is flawed.

 

[-Demosthenes-]

I'm a liberal pot smoker, and even when I'm stoned I'll bet 9 out of 10 people on this forum would agree that I'm still a WHOLE LOT smarter than you, and this is for a few simple reasons.

Dude, go lay down for a while, and come back when you can think clearly.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

What are the basic rationales for the death penalty?

It acts as a deterrent?

Ripping someone's eyes out with fork for committing a crime can be a "deterrent", killing someone's family for committing a crime can be a "deterrent", but does that make it right?

A deterrent is effective when someone knows what will happen to him when he commits the act.

Our nukes were a successful deterrent to the USSR because they knew we'd use them if they used theirs.

Capital punishment cannot be considered a deterrent when it's not applied. One thug a year gets offed in San Quentin in california, even though we have hundreds of things living on "death-row"?

The deterrent aspect is a joke.

It saves lives?

It doesn't deter, it can't be saving lives, right?

Revenge?

Nah, the state doesn't care about that. It can't be revenge when the judicial machinery doesn't know the victim.

Valid reason to take a life?

Sure, why not? Westerfield kidnapped, raped, then murdered 7 year old Danielle van Damme. Her entire life was taken in a few hours of torture and terror, something no small child should suffer. Why keep Westerfield alive? Why not impose death as the appropriate penalty?

Jose Avila kidnapped a 5 year old girl and did the same.

Scott Peterson murdered his own son.

Death is the highest price that can be exacted. What moral arguments are there against it for crimes costing the lives of others?

But, to be honest, in each of those three cases, my hopes were that the jury would not impose execution on those men. Death row is a vacation. They have their own cell, their own cable TV. They're safe, for decades to come.

Jeffrey Dahmer did not get the death penalty, but he was dead withing far fewer years than if he'd been given a death sentence.

Westerfield, baby raper, was a fat balding electrical engineer with no criminal experience. Nothing more fitting for him could be envisioned than to have put him in the general population with the run of the mill criminals. He'd learn first hand the joys of rape, and probably also the thrill of dying in terror.

Same for Jose.

And pretty boy Scott would have been a long time in dying.

If the Death penalty was applied effectively, why not use it. Since it's not, it's more efficient to put those people in with the career criminals and let them get straightened out.

Are there other basic and simple reasons or rationales for the death penalty, or other responses?[/QUOTE]

 

[jamesrage]

A deterrent is effective when someone knows what will happen to him when he commits the act.

Our nukes were a successful deterrent to the USSR because they knew we'd use them if they used theirs.

Capital punishment cannot be considered a deterrent when it's not applied. One thug a year gets offed in San Quentin in california, even though we have hundreds of things living on "death-row"?

The deterrent aspect is a joke.

You have a point,the solution would be to speed up the death penalty process,eliminate most of the appeals,and kick the shrinks out of the court room.