Well, this has been posted a bit in the "abortion" thread and it was suggested that another thread was made for this all together!

So here it is!!

So What we will hopefully be discussing here is if you agree with the death penalty in America or if you think that is should be abolished as it has been in Britain.

I personally don't agree with the death penalty because what is teh point of teaching a murderer a lesson by killing them? Plus it is irreversable so that if by some chance they are found out to be innocent and you have allready killed them they can't be released!

I know that over-crowding in prisons is a huge problem, in Britain and the USA but i think that maybe instead of just a prison sentance more rehabilitation centres should be established so that people with more minor crimes can slowly be integrated back into society and programs in place to get them out of the house/ situations they were in before they got sentanced. I know that some programs sort of like that allready exist but they obviously arent working!

I also think something should be done about the set up in prisons too so that it is a one person per cell set up so that they have less oppertunities to share "tips" on how to kill/rob and all that jazz.

So as i said before just type away about your views on the subject of the Death Penalty and on Prison situations and so on!!

Thanks

I absolutely think the death penalty should be abolished.

For one thing, it does no good at all. The threat doesn't keep anyone from committing crimes punishable by the death penalty, it simply makes them try harder to cover it up, which could actually result in more victims in the end. Indeed, homicide rates are higher in places where the death penalty is a possibility. Public safety isn't really an issue; while jail breaks do happen, someone who escapes from a life sentence isn't going to risk getting caught again by returning to old habits, and them simply existing isn't putting the public in any danger. People always point to money being an issue, but not only is it a very dangerous thing to start putting a monetary value on human lives, but it is actually far cheaper to keep an inmate alive and in prison the rest of his natural life than it is to execute him.* Then, of course, there's the "poor families" of the victims. Much as I feel for these people, revenge is not something we should, as a society, support, let alone provide a legal outlet for. Furthermore, not every family wants to see the murderer of their loved one executed. They are given no say in the matter, yet whenever they do want the death penalty and anything is stopping them, all anyone talks about is "getting justice". That's not justice, my friends. That is wanting to see someone die because they've wronged you. It's a perfectly valid feeling, but it's not something we should cater to.

Then there's the issue of innocence. If one innocent man is killed by a system that exists solely to protect the innocent, it doesn't matter how many guilty men were also killed, that system has failed. It has become what it was created to protect us from. And a good many innocent men and women have been executed. Guilt is never 100% certain; even now, with all our high-tech methods of evaluating forensics, even with seemingly perfect witnesses, mistakes are made, and those mistakes have cost people their lives. That shouldn't be something that ever happens. So, if it doesn't do anything good, and only really ends up doing bad things, why do we continue to support it?

As far as the prison system in general goes, I think it needs a massive overhaul. First off, we should stop thinking of it in terms of punishment. Punishment doesn't do anything besides make people want to avoid that punishment at all costs (and not necessarily associating said punishment with their own actions), and view the person or system that punished them as a villain to be hated and defied. And it allows no room at all for change in behavior. Someone goes to prison, gets out, and they're still punished by society. No, if we actually want to see any drop in crime, we need to focus less on punishing those evil, rotten people and more on treating them like human beings capable of change and providing them with whatever they need to make said change. Then, of course, there's the overcrowding issue that's largely due to all the people imprisoned for victimless crimes (drug users, for instance, or those who do something to themselves that is illegal but affects no one else, such as certain body modifications in some places). This seems entirely pointless to me. If you're so determined to force your morality down someone else's throat, make them pay a fine or something. Don't stick them in prison to take up space and resources that could be spent on criminals who have actually done harm.


*And before anyone says anything, these costs are necessary unless we're going to ignore human rights altogether. The vast majority of the cost comes from the various appeals and the execution itself. The appeals process is necessary to keep more innocent people from being executed than already are, and making executions any cheaper to carry out would make them even less humane.

I've merged this Death Penalty thread with the original Debate topic.

Please remember to always search the forum before making a new thread.

Personally i think death penalty is a bad idea
If you kill a person for murder it kind of ruins the message- makes you a murderer too
Besides when you kill someone their family suffers a lot.

I believe in the death penalty, and I think child molestors and rapists should be considered to go on death row also.

And we need to stop putting people in jail for long periods of time for drugs. If people are going to do drugs they are going to do them. My uncle got 14 year for making meth.

A close family friend of mine is getting federally charged with murder for buying heroine that somebody else shot up and died. He shot himself up.

No I don't think 'murderers' like her should get the death penalty, but where it is apparant that the perp. knew what they were doing, shot the gun, stabbed someone, ect. they can be done with. Or at least we should not give them parole.

And with the child molestors and rapists, I think we should at least announce what they were charged with when they get there so our friendly inmates can show them how they feel about people who touch children

And again, I don't mean stupid cases like stagitory(sp?) rape. Because I know someone who was a whore at age twelve, and she knew damn well what she was doing.

Why should those that do not regret their actions and have killed several people stay in prison at our costs?
My friend's father is a prison guard and he has seen some despicable people in their. People that tied a guy to a tree and burnt him, just to see how quickly he dies.
People that laughed when getting their sentence...
Death Penalty is illegal in England, but I'm talking about those sick people that purposefully killed people over and over again. I'm talking about the people that do not regret. If I were related to someone who committed dreadful crimes that are not justified if that person is in prison. What about the family of the victim? What about them?

But I can see the other side of the story.
Doesn't killing a serial murderer make you a murderer? Or what about their families? Well the victims had family. We are paying so that murderers can go to prison? Ridiculous. And the prisoners can sue the prison, and get loads of money from it if they're clever.
I mean, petty theft, sure they can sit out their sentence in jail, and I have no problem with that. Don't call me brutal, but I used to think that death penalty was stupid, until I saw the other side of the story. It is no easy topic to debate, but I think death penalty is just. Partly, anyways.
A part of me still shies away at the thought of killing a person. But those in full awareness of their crimes and that do not regret, do not deserve to sit in the safe jail.
Child molestors are the lowest of the low in prison, and they are disgusting in my eyes. I loathe them, and many inmates will attack child molestors, because they have no respect for such a repulsive crime.

Originally Posted by -Miss-Mc-TaterTot-

And we need to stop putting people in jail for long periods of time for drugs. If people are going to do drugs they are going to do them. My uncle got 14 year for making meth.

Your uncle deserves his sentence. Meth labs are basically ticking time bombs (with an emphasis on the 'bomb' bit). If the lab was near any place where people live or frequent, he was risking innocent people's lives. And let's hope he wasn't in an apartment -- the fumes alone are enough to do some serious damage.

And again, I don't mean stupid cases like stagitory(sp?) rape. Because I know someone who was a whore at age twelve, and she knew damn well what she was doing.

Prove this. Because pretty much every psychologist agrees that at 12, children don't have a good grasp on the possible consequences of any of their actions that aren't immediate and direct. They certainly don't understand the possible consequences of sex, even if they've been told. Just because they "know what they're doing" and realize they're having intercourse, that doesn't mean they're mature enough to weigh the pros and cons and then make an informed decision. Not to mention, children at that age are very easily manipulated and mentally controlled, whether by their peers or by elders. For all you know, she had been made to believe something negative would happen to her if she didn't do this, or that she would be rewarded if she did.

Also, lay off the sexist language, please. I'm fairly certain she was not in fact a prostitute at age 12, so using the term 'whore' to describe a child is unnecessary and hateful.

*points at wing_goddess post at the top of the page*

It seems like everyone knows when they should at least pretend to be, but these bastardic criminals that don't care a $#!¬ about others do exist unfortunately, like Pip mentioned.

I'm not for emotional appeals, so whenever I hear someone scream for justice, the Accounting principle always comes to my mind: "You give, you receive, in equal amounts." That murderer, if he or she didn't have a valid reason to kill, they should be killed. Between:
Case A: Woman witnessed how some criminals broke into her hose and attempted to rape her daughter, so she shot them to death.
and...
Case B: Burglar broke into house, raped mother and daughter, then shot them to death.
The case A woman had a reason to kill, but the Case B guy did not, so Case B would be receiving death penalty.

@ Philomel: Ever since you're a little kid with a one-digit age, your parents and society in general is teaching you right from wrong. If a kid shot a woman and killed her just to kill, you would have to show me evidence they were never taught hurting people, even by giving a punch, was wrong for me to not feel angry at the kid.

Also, I think she really meant whore as in prostitute. It's wrong, it's sad, but I've seen them and even younger too. Though I do agree that in the majority of cases, they don't choose to end up like that but rather were forced to.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

@ Philomel: Ever since you're a little kid with a one-digit age, your parents and society in general is teaching you right from wrong. If a kid shot a woman and killed her just to kill, you would have to show me evidence they were never taught hurting people, even by giving a punch, was wrong for me to not feel angry at the kid.

Yes. However, there is a difference in being told something is wrong and fully understanding the consequences. How many times have you told a child not to do something and why, and they've turned right around and done that very thing? It's not that they don't care about the consequences, they just haven't mastered cause and effect well enough to understand that when they're told B will happen if they do A, B will happen. And sex and its possible consequences have an added complication in that most 12 year olds don't know what STDs are and fully how they affect them and how society may treat them because of said STDs, and they don't understand the full implications of pregnancy, including all the risks and pain that come with it, should the child's parents not make abortion an option.

Also, I think she really meant whore as in prostitute. It's wrong, it's sad, but I've seen them and even younger too. Though I do agree that in the majority of cases, they don't choose to end up like that but rather were forced to.[/COLOR]

At that age, they almost always have been manipulated into doing it or have suffered some other sort of abuse or unfortunate situation to put them into that spot. Miss isn't portraying her as a victim of abuse or, more likely, a child sex slave, so much as someone who "knew what she was doing" and *chose* to do it anyway, even going so far as to call the imprisonment of her abusers "stupid". I have a hard time believing that anyone, no matter how cold, would treat a child prostitute as some horrible creature and her "clients" as victims. So, I doubt she meant a literal 'whore'.

And that's why we punish kids.

And then, that reasoning could apply to adult prostitutes. Do you agree with that statement? [Just asking]

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

[COLOR="Indigo"]And that's why we punish kids.

Except that such doesn't work. They associate the punishment with getting caught, not with committing the infraction. And so, they keep doing what they're doing as long as they believe they can get away with it. No matter how many times you beat a child for doing something, they aren't going to actually understand the consequences beyond maybe, MAYBE that doing X while being under your roof = punishment. That's not going to help them when they get older and move out. A parent should simply care more about their child's future.

And are you suggesting this girl is doing something she should be punished for? If we're going to say that she obviously knows what she's doing and understands the consequences, and so her clients and pimp shouldn't be punished, why should she be punished? Illegal /=/ bad, and if she's perfectly capable of consenting like you say, I don't see what the problem is and why she's being portrayed as a bad person. Even if she really is a prostitute, 'whore' is very much a loaded term nowadays, and the way the rest of that bit was written suggests that she does not think very highly of her.

And then, that reasoning could apply to adult prostitutes. Do you agree with that statement? [Just asking]

No, I do not. While it's true that some adult prostitutes were pushed into it as children, most went into the business later in life. In most instances, they were not forced or coerced, but rather chose it because of financial reasons or perhaps they simply enjoy it. While it's not always easy to leave the industry, it is generally a lot easier for an adult to do it than a child. The two simply aren't comparable.

I never mentioned clients and pimps, so don't make it as if I suggested they shouldn't be punished.

I said [or meant to] that kids know when they're doing something wrong after you tell them it's wrong. Whether they know the consequences or not, they know people must have a reasoning behind whether something's wrong or not, and instead of defying that rule, they should ask in the moment "Why?" and considering the questioning nature of children, they usually ask why. Kids usually do the opposite when you fail at explaining them the rules. I don't think "Don't hurt people because it makes you a bad person and the other will suffer a lot" is that hard for kids to understand, specially if they can understand how to use a gun, like I mentioned in my example.

I didn't portray the 12-year-old prostitute as a bad person. I said we punish kids when we want them to stop doing bad things, so they know there are consequences to what they do.

Originally Posted by Philomel

At that age, they almost always have been manipulated into doing it or have suffered some other sort of abuse or unfortunate situation to put them into that spot. Miss isn't portraying her as a victim of abuse or, more likely, a child sex slave, so much as someone who "knew what she was doing" and *chose* to do it anyway, even going so far as to call the imprisonment of her abusers "stupid". I have a hard time believing that anyone, no matter how cold, would treat a child prostitute as some horrible creature and her "clients" as victims. So, I doubt she meant a literal 'whore'.

Same situations can happen to adult women. I don't know where you live honestly, but around here prostitutes are most of the time forced or coerced into it. I've also heard of some going to other countries with the promise of a job, and sold as sex slaves. So I defy the reasoning that most adult prostitutes chose to join it.

The thing is though, when we are talking about the family of the murderer I have but one thing to say.

If it wasn't the mother, it was the father.

Many psychologists agree with this matter. Most murderers kill due to their upbringing, because the parents did something. Saying this, some children are born with an edge to mental unstableness. There was simply a switch that someone activated.

And I agree with Kah Hilzin-Ec on that. A lot of prostitutes were promised something better, or were forced to go into the business.

I think there are things that people deserve to die for. Killing someone out of hate (not an accident), for example. I think that it would be fair to kill them instead of making them live day in and day out in a box.
But I also think that people spend too much government money to put said people to death. it takes a couple million dollars to kill someone on death row.
I think that time and money could be saved if they just shot them. not to mention it would be more humanitary to shoot them, because either they face the chair (sucks but isn't used much anymore), they go into the gas chamber (also sucks and isn't used much anymore), they're given a shot (that no one REALLY knows if it hurts or not. I mean they inject them with poison that stops their heart), or they're put in front of the fireing squad (I don't even think it's used anymore). all in all I'd say it sucks to be put to death by the state. with the way they kill people I'd rather kill myself before giving them the chance to kill me slowly.

You know, it may sound harsh, but I agree with the death penalty. Loads of prisons nowadays are overcrowded and new ones keep having to be bulit.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

[COLOR="Indigo"]I never mentioned clients and pimps, so don't make it as if I suggested they shouldn't be punished.

No, but the person I was originally responding to said exactly that, that people going to prison over statutory rape is "stupid". You defended her, so forgive me for assuming you shared her opinion.

This is why I was hoping no one would butt in before she had a chance to respond. For all we know, this entire argument is moot because she didn't really mean a 'prostitute' at all.

I said [or meant to] that kids know when they're doing something wrong after you tell them it's wrong. Whether they know the consequences or not, they know people must have a reasoning behind whether something's wrong or not, and instead of defying that rule, they should ask in the moment "Why?" and considering the questioning nature of children, they usually ask why. Kids usually do the opposite when you fail at explaining them the rules. I don't think "Don't hurt people because it makes you a bad person and the other will suffer a lot" is that hard for kids to understand, specially if they can understand how to use a gun, like I mentioned in my example.

No, they don't "know" something is wrong just because you tell them it is. It's a damned good thing, too -- no child would ever escape their parents' indoctrination if that were the case. Considering my racist father, I personally am very glad children don't assume what their parents tell them is "wrong" really is. They may go along with it while you're there, but that only means they're afraid of you punishing them.

I didn't portray the 12-year-old prostitute as a bad person. I said we punish kids when we want them to stop doing bad things, so they know there are consequences to what they do.

But that does not make sense. The "consequences" you're teaching them no longer even apply when you don't know they've done whatever it is you didn't want them to or you're no longer considered authority. If the only consequence they even know about for an action is you spanking them, you can't honestly expect them to continue not doing whatever it is after you're out of the picture for whatever reason. And you can't honestly blame them, since they don't understand why an action is not a good idea and how it might affect them.

And if you're not saying she should be punished, why are you bringing it up? This all started with you finding issue with me saying that 12-year-olds cannot give consent and as such 'statutory rape' is not "stupid", as the person I was replying to stated. If statutory rape IS "stupid", then no one's doing anything wrong and she shouldn't be punished and this whole discussion on teaching children "wrong" and "right" through punishment, rather than explanations and positive reinforcement, has no relevance.

I don't understand what it is you're arguing. Are you saying that 12-year-olds can consent, and all those psychologists and sociologists are wrong?

Same situations can happen to adult women. I don't know where you live honestly, but around here prostitutes are most of the time forced or coerced into it.

Prove this? Because every study I've ever seen on the issue indicates that while many feel they "had no choice" due to financial situations or societal pressures, people who were actually forced into the industry are a minority.

I've also heard of some going to other countries with the promise of a job, and sold as sex slaves.

Where do you live that a majority of sex workers are sex slaves? And if they aren't, why are you bringing this tidbit up? Being "possible" is not the same as being what happens all the time. It is a fact that nearly all of the child sex workers, at least in the US, were forced into it, either by parents or guardians or by someone who abducted or "bought" them. It is such a huge problem that police who find these underage sex workers have little choice but to arrest them, simply to get them away from their abusers. This is not at all the case with adult sex workers. Many manage themselves entirely, with no sort of pimp or boss involved at all. Those who do were often not forced into it at all. And yes, abuses do happen, human trafficking happens, but again, in the adult sex industry, sex slaves are a minority.

JazXXX: It may sound harsh, but elementary schools and daycares are overcrowded, too. Let's start killing them off.

Of course, I don't mean that, but my point is, a reluctance to build larger prisons in the face of an ever-increasing population or to release the multitude of inmates that are no more a danger to society than you or I is not a good excuse to kill people.

Shadow Never Seen: Firing squads are an option in a few states still, but due to the human factor involved, they are not in any way humane. Besides the chance to miss all vital organs while still wounding them horribly and making them suffer for a few hours before they eventually bleed out, there are intentional misses by sadistic shooters that haven't been eliminated completely, despite many attempts to make it impossible or at least improbable for someone to intentionally make the death inhumane. And a bullet in the brain isn't necessarily humane either, as people have survived gunshot wounds to the head before, and while most eventually did die, it was a painful and prolonged death. There is no completely, 100% certain way of killing someone and making sure it's humane, and while the small chance might be okay for someone choosing to die after years of pain and suffering and illness, it's not okay for someone who in all likelihood would live many more happy, healthy years if it weren't for the state deciding they should cease to exist.

Uh, Philomel and Kah Hilzin-Ec, sorry to interrupt but isn't this meant to be a debate about death sentence?
I mean, death sentence could be seen as immoral and murder, but I suppose their are those people that believe that 30 years of prison isn't justice.
Because, let's say that you have a child, and that child is killed and the murderer only gets life long sentence. How would you react?

Originally Posted by Xanadam

I think the death penalty should be for repeat, known criminals. (I'm not saying repeat petty theft. I mean murder, etc.)

And I think their death should be chosen by the families that suffered. Have them taken out back and shot in the head for all I care. They're a menace to society.

Agreed. The Death Penalty should be reserved for proven, no-doubt-about-it guilty criminals. Psychopaths, and serial murderers/rapist type people.
I think this because most of those type will never feel guilt. They don't care.
Time will only waste more tax-payer's money on their lives.

Uk, this is a difficult debate.

I mostly don't believe in death penalty because it's an easy way out for people that deserve to suffer.

On the other hand, if a pedophile only gets a couple of years in jail, get's released on good behaviour only to rape small children all over again. I can understand why parents would wanna take justice in their own hands. I don't think such people change either way; and a death penalty would prevent more victims.

Originally Posted by Lollipop Z 0 M B I 3

Uh, Philomel and Kah Hilzin-Ec, sorry to interrupt but isn't this meant to be a debate about death sentence?
I mean, death sentence could be seen as immoral and murder, but I suppose their are those people that believe that 30 years of prison isn't justice.

Unless you think all murderers are senior citizens, I'm not sure where you get this number from.

Because, let's say that you have a child, and that child is killed and the murderer only gets life long sentence. How would you react?

I would be happy, because I oppose the death penalty. Period. Sure, I would probably have some pretty homicidal thoughts, but I would't act on them, and I wouldn't expect the state to either. Grief is no excuse for horrible actions that affect other people.

I'll just limit it to "Kids just go against the rules when you fail at explaining." Considering they have a higher neuroplasticity than adults, and seem to be intelligent enough to use a gun...

---

My inhumane side butts in and I can't help but get around the gray area that is humanity, morals and ethics, to step on pragmatism and feel the accounting principle of you give what you receive and you receive what you give equally should be used.

And I agree with Saro on that guilty criminals who don't feel sorry nor care to become a functioning member of society despite being able to shouldn't really keep on living, for their purpose for life clashes with those of the majority who are functioning members.

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

[COLOR="Indigo"]I'll just limit it to "Kids just go against the rules when you fail at explaining." Considering they have a higher neuroplasticity than adults, and seem to be intelligent enough to use a gun...

Anything with fingers can use a gun. That doesn't mean they understand the consequences of pulling the trigger.

My inhumane side butts in and I can't help but get around the gray area that is humanity, morals and ethics, to step on pragmatism and feel the accounting principle of you give what you receive and you receive what you give equally should be used.

You still shouldn't support it, even with that reasoning. Too many innocent people are executed, so there's no sort of "balance" at all. Plus, people who rob don't have money or property taken from them, people who rape aren't raped in return, people who abuse animals aren't abused themselves. There are no other cases in which 'do unto others' comes into play at all.

Also, treason and desertion are punishable by the death penalty, completely regardless of whether or not anyone was physically harmed by their actions.

And I agree with Saro on that guilty criminals who don't feel sorry nor care to become a functioning member of society despite being able to shouldn't really keep on living, for their purpose for life clashes with those of the majority who are functioning members.

Why kill people who might be innocent, though? Why not just lock them up, away from the rest of society? Killing should never be treated as anything but a last resort, and in this case, it just isn't necessary.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Anything with fingers can use a gun. That doesn't mean they understand the consequences of pulling the trigger.

Considering how heavy they are and the good aim you need to shoot someone, I don't think is something you do at the heat of the moment. Plus kids these days are taught from early on that hurting anybody does have consequences, even from TV.

Originally Posted by Philomel

You still shouldn't support it, even with that reasoning. Too many innocent people are executed, so there's no sort of "balance" at all. Plus, people who rob don't have money or property taken from them, people who rape aren't raped in return, people who abuse animals aren't abused themselves. There are no other cases in which 'do unto others' comes into play at all.

People on death penalty are the ones who have all evidence against them, and even usually then, they're given a life sentence in most cases. I know not everyone who is suspected to be a murderer is going to be murdered, but to those who are proven they murdered, especially when it was all planned beforehand, I think they should.

Or at least, be put to use for good society and do forced labour, and then people would argue that's inhumane and that human life doesn't have a price, but then, why should someone who cold-bloodlely murdered someone have their life respected?

Also, I believe robbers should give back the things they robbed, or go to jail and work there so they can pay back the amount they robbed and pay a fine to the State for their service, instead of just going to jail. Since rapists take something that can't be given back, they would have to go through something equally undesirable, say, forced labour while they're in jail.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Also, treason and desertion are punishable by the death penalty, completely regardless of whether or not anyone was physically harmed by their actions.

I'm not to comment on treason and desertion, since I can't fully comprehend the impact they have, considering it changes from case to case.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Why kill people who might be innocent, though? Why not just lock them up, away from the rest of society? Killing should never be treated as anything but a last resort, and in this case, it just isn't necessary.

Kill people who might be innocent? In case you were referring to the last paragraph, I was talking about the kind that will laugh at the policemen's faces and say "So what, huh?" I don't think an innocent person would react like that, unless they had some serious mental dissorder that stopped them from recognizing reality. Unless the State gives that person medicines so they can control themselves, why keep someone who isn't going to serve not even themselves?

Originally Posted by Kah Hilzin-Ec

[COLOR="Indigo"]
Considering how heavy they are and the good aim you need to shoot someone, I don't think is something you do at the heat of the moment.

Um...considering how many crimes of passion have been committed using guns, I'd have to disagree with you here.

Plus kids these days are taught from early on that hurting anybody does have consequences, even from TV.

They're "taught" in the same way I was "taught" pre-cal. Just because the information's there, doesn't mean the person being taught understands it. Combine that with a general unwillingness to let children see violence and death on TV or in movies, and I don't think it's at all shocking that they still don't realize the full consequences of their actions. And by consequences I mean 'someone dying', not 'you going into timeout'. Raising children to only not do things out of fear of punishment is dangerous, because the punishment won't always be there.

People on death penalty are the ones who have all evidence against them, and even usually then, they're given a life sentence in most cases. I know not everyone who is suspected to be a murderer is going to be murdered, but to those who are proven they murdered, especially when it was all planned beforehand, I think they should.

Obviously that's not the case. Innocent people have been executed (the most recent widely-publicized execution that comes to mind was that of a man in 2004 of setting fire to his house and killing his children, when they now know the fire wasn't arson at all, something that should have been known to the investigators back then), and there's no reason to think this will stop anytime soon.

Or at least, be put to use for good society and do forced labour, and then people would argue that's inhumane and that human life doesn't have a price,

See, that's where your argument breaks off in logic. Why forced labour? It doesn't do any good except to make them miserable. If you cannot be satisfied with them not being a threat to society anymore, it isn't justice or protecting the innocent you're concerned with.

but then, why should someone who cold-bloodlely murdered someone have their life respected?

Because it's a life, a life they're fully aware of. What they do doesn't negate that fact. Society honours that in every other aspect, why not in this one? Oh, that's right. Because the people in charge are sadists.

Also, I believe robbers should give back the things they robbed, or go to jail and work there so they can pay back the amount they robbed and pay a fine to the State for their service, instead of just going to jail. Since rapists take something that can't be given back, they would have to go through something equally undesirable, say, forced labour while they're in jail.

And again, what you're asking for isn't justice or protecting society, it's revenge. Revenge should not be carried out by an executioner.

I'm not to comment on treason and desertion, since I can't fully comprehend the impact they have, considering it changes from case to case.

But you can agree that they do not always end someone's life. Desertion very rarely does, even indirectly. So, your argument for why we should keep the death penalty falls flat, since it would take more work to get the death penalty taken off the table for those two crimes than it would to get it abolished altogether. Kinda throws off the whole 'get what you give' thing, doesn't it?

Kill people who might be innocent? In case you were referring to the last paragraph, I was talking about the kind that will laugh at the policemen's faces and say "So what, huh?" I don't think an innocent person would react like that, unless they had some serious mental dissorder that stopped them from recognizing reality.

Then you don't understand the anti-police culture. Completely innocent people can get themselves in trouble because they do not trust cops. It's usually in poorer communities that you see this, since they tend to have the least favorable interactions with the police. And I was referring to the people who are wrongly convicted and executed. You know, the "innocent" people.

Unless the State gives that person medicines so they can control themselves, why keep someone who isn't going to serve not even themselves?

Because your distaste for how someone lives their life doesn't justify killing them. I can't go shoot the hobo on the corner because I don't think he's doing what he should be with his life. I can't go around killing druggies because they're "wasting" their lives. It doesn't work that way, ever. It doesn't even work that way in executions, as this is honestly the first time I've ever heard this argument used to justify it.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Um...considering how many crimes of passion have been committed using guns, I'd have to disagree with you here.

Why is a kid carrying a gun anyway? Do their parents fail that much? Or insecurity gives them some right to carry one around despite it being illegal?

Originally Posted by Philomel

They're "taught" in the same way I was "taught" pre-cal. Just because the information's there, doesn't mean the person being taught understands it. Combine that with a general unwillingness to let children see violence and death on TV or in movies, and I don't think it's at all shocking that they still don't realize the full consequences of their actions. And by consequences I mean 'someone dying', not 'you going into timeout'. Raising children to only not do things out of fear of punishment is dangerous, because the punishment won't always be there.

Again, I'm not talking about 4-year-old children. 8-year-olds are intelligent enough by then to understand there is more than time-outs. They would be living in a bubble if they didn't know that by then, and if they did, they wouldn't be carrying a gun.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Obviously that's not the case. Innocent people have been executed (the most recent widely-publicized execution that comes to mind was that of a man in 2004 of setting fire to his house and killing his children, when they now know the fire wasn't arson at all, something that should have been known to the investigators back then), and there's no reason to think this will stop anytime soon.

Could you tell me then what got them to think he set his house on fire and kill his children on purpose, then, after having him dead, got them to think otherwise?

Originally Posted by Philomel

See, that's where your argument breaks off in logic. Why forced labour? It doesn't do any good except to make them miserable. If you cannot be satisfied with them not being a threat to society anymore, it isn't justice or protecting the innocent you're concerned with.

No, that's where your understanding fails. I wouldn't put anyone on forced labour because "Me wants revenge arrrg!" I want them to pay back to society. They made a whole family miserable. Give these criminals a job. Having a job is suposed to be the best thing in life, giving you a purpose to live, to serve people.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Because it's a life, a life they're fully aware of. What they do doesn't negate that fact. Society honours that in every other aspect, why not in this one? Oh, that's right. Because the people in charge are sadists.

Well, if me not recognizing a "special trait" that you didn't even make an effort to obtain, but was given to you and wrongly used, makes me a sadist, then I am. I can put it in my signature if you want, but those personal attacks aren't going to affect me.

Originally Posted by Philomel

And again, what you're asking for isn't justice or protecting society, it's revenge. Revenge should not be carried out by an executioner.

And again, your understanding fails. You're basing yourself off solely from feelings, I base myself on accounting. So if I get a really low score in a quiz, and my mom forces me to study so I do better next time, my mom is taking revenge on me?

With that last sentence, you mean only innocent people should make the dirty jobs? That would totally wipe judges off from the face of Earth. That, unless you fail at explaining yourself, in which case, I want a more in-depth explanation.

Originally Posted by Philomel

But you can agree that they do not always end someone's life. Desertion very rarely does, even indirectly. So, your argument for why we should keep the death penalty falls flat, since it would take more work to get the death penalty taken off the table for those two crimes than it would to get it abolished altogether. Kinda throws off the whole 'get what you give' thing, doesn't it?

I don't understand you.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Then you don't understand the anti-police culture. Completely innocent people can get themselves in trouble because they do not trust cops. It's usually in poorer communities that you see this, since they tend to have the least favorable interactions with the police. And I was referring to the people who are wrongly convicted and executed. You know, the "innocent" people.

Tell me, it's the system failing, or the people that run it?

Originally Posted by Philomel

Because your distaste for how someone lives their life doesn't justify killing them. I can't go shoot the hobo on the corner because I don't think he's doing what he should be with his life. I can't go around killing druggies because they're "wasting" their lives. It doesn't work that way, ever. It doesn't even work that way in executions, as this is honestly the first time I've ever heard this argument used to justify it.

You know how much I dislike when people twist my words until it becomes something completely different? You consider being a murderer is a personal lifestyle? And you think I'm a sadist.

I don't care how people live their own lives. You can do drugs until your self-demise, hell, it's your decision. My anger gets to when people ruin it to others. Ruin it as in forcing the victim to an undesirable state or situation when they didn't do anything to deserve it. I can't believe you suggested I would kill homeless people. It's not like they're stealing guns and going on killing-sprees.