Death Penalty to... [Story from Digg]

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by wyatt23, May 30, 2007.

  1. wyatt23 macrumors 6502a

    wyatt23

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Forest Hills, NY
    #1
    [Before you post... please think through your thoughts as they very well may offend someone in the forum. please take how others feel into consideration before you post. not just for this thread but for all as well.]

    I recently came across this story on digg.com [my #2 fav site :p ] and it intrigued me, becasue, well, i don't have a stance on it. The Headline is along the lines... legislation gaining headway for pedophiles to receive the death penalty. the link is:
    http://www.digg.com/offbeat_news/Proposals_to_Execute_Pedophiles_Making_Headway_in_US

    read the story just to get a take on what's going on in the world, and if your post is going to be offensive, remember what your mother said about not having something nice to say. :)
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    There is no valid reason to commit judicial murder.
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #3
    Pretty soon everything will be punishable by the death penalty, or everyone will be in prison for life the way our laws keep piling up.

    Pedophiles? Life in prison. It's a tough call though. A lot of people would like to see them put to death, myself included. But I can't say that it's a good thing to do.
     
  4. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #4
    Its an interesting question...I've yet to come to a firm place on the death Penalty....its something I think about alot, but just can't find a solution to it I like.



    As for pedophiles being killed...again its hard, and I have not put enough though into the issue to people able to make an educated choice on were I stand....so for know I don't want to support either idea. My first idea is that is a bit harsh...live in prision might be a better solution, their away from kids, and still alive.
     
  5. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #5
    If someone is trying to kill you, would you kill him before he does so?
     
  6. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #6
    Self defence during their attempt is one thing, but if I decided to kill him before he acted it would be me committing murder.

    I completely agree with skunk. The state should not have the right to take the life of its citizens under any circumstances, however abhorrent their behaviour.
     
  7. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #7
    I see Death Penalty as the self-defense of the whole society. And it is the government the one who most implement it.
     
  8. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #8
    Before you try to convince me that pedofiles deserve the death penalty, you're going to have to start with convincing me anybody deserves the death penalty.
     
  9. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #9
    It's only self-defence if the killing is carried out whilst the perpetrator of an act has the ability to seriously hurt or kill others at that moment. For instance, if a crazed gunman running through a shopping centre gets shot dead by the police then nobody can really complain.

    If it happens outside of the spur of the moment it is premeditated murder, and that's the same whether it's a court committing the act. Also courts are not infallible and governments most certainly are not. If you trust them with that power, you accept that innocent people will be put to death and actively support it.

    So by calling for the death penalty you are guilty of conspiracy to murder. Best you go turn yourself in now.
     
  10. fotografica macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2006
    Location:
    Boston
    #10
    As far as pedophiles,I believe that life imprisonment would be far worse than the dealth penalty.
    For the death penalty itself,with the way the judicial system is in this country,I'm afraid there are probably alot of innocent poor people on death row..
     
  11. psychofreak Retired

    psychofreak

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #11
    The death penalty is sickening...no matter what...at all...however bad the crime...
     
  12. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #12
    Death Penalty is a HUGE theme that can take a lot of time to discuss over the internet. So I'll just say some of my opinions:

    1. Punishment ought to deter future crime. DP makes few people want to make a crime that would merit DP. I believe that DP ends abolishing itself when used correctly. With time people won't want to end sentenced to DP, and with time DP would start to be less and less necessary.

    2. As I said, DP is the defense that the state offers to the community.

    3. DP is not murder. Killing, intrinsically, is something wrong, but this does not mean it is not justifiable in some occasions. Self defense is one of this occasions. War could be another example, it is intrinsically incorrect, but is justifiable to bring peace to a community.
     
  13. psychofreak Retired

    psychofreak

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #13
    To what extent could this be taken: people who rape children only...people who photograph naked children...people who download those naked pictures?

    If the government starts getting more on a killing high, it could get too out of hand (maybe it has already)...
     
  14. macmama macrumors regular

    macmama

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2006
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #14
    Well put, Skunk. This legislation is appalling.
     
  15. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #15
    Well as far as I'm concerned, the death penaly is a sign of a savage, uncivilised society with weak morals.

    I can't for the life of me see how those who most support the death penalty are also most likely to call themselves christain. (not speaking about anyone here, just the overall tie between "death penalty" <--> "Republican" <--> "Christains")
     
  16. geese macrumors 6502a

    geese

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #16
    1. DP does not work as a deterrent in the USA. Unless i am mistaken, there is no proof that DP is detering the committing of serious crimes in the USA.

    2. How is DP any more of a defence then lifetime imprisonment?

    3. An arguable point. But again, how do you deal with miscarrages of justice?
     
  17. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #17
    Self-defense refers to actions taken by a person to prevent another person from causing harm to one's self, one's property or one's home.

    In this case it is the government the one providing defense to the community.

    Then killing the person at the moment would also be incorrect, since you don't know for certain if that guy is going to make a crime. For example, the guy the police killed in an airport because he started acting aggressively. (link)

    Or the guy at London that when the police called him to stop and search his backpack started running from the police and the police killed him. Resulting that the guy was only an illegal brazilian living in London.

    And any killing is premeditated, just that with DP you have more time to premeditate.

    :rolleyes:
     
  18. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #18
    The government loves to make us all feel that we need protection. It's mostly propaganda. I wouldn't trust them as far as I could kick them, least of all with someone else's life.

    Jean-Charles De Menezes was not running from the police. He walked as usual from his home to a Tube station, boarded a train and was brutally gunned down for it. This example proves my point rather than yours. The apparatus of the state is made up of human beings who make mistakes. Giving them power to kill means innocent people being killed, then telling blatant lies to cover their tracks.

    Twaddle. Accidentally killing someone whilst fighting them off is not pre-meditated, neither is a doctor making a mistake on an operating table and losing a patient.
     
  19. kalisphoenix macrumors 65816

    kalisphoenix

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    #19
    Does the death penalty deter crime? Surveys say: No. Ding ding ding.

    It's not defense. It's retribution. Calling the death penalty defense is like saying rape is a good way to get a date.

    The death penalty is murder -- the complete and intentional elimination of one individual by others. Is it justifiable? I would argue that it isn't, since it's retributive justice, and retribution doesn't really seem to benefit anyone in a meaningful way. It's not rehabilitating, since it basically eliminates the possibility of a person ever being rehabilitated. So why is it necessary? Because we "don't need that person around anymore?" Because "they're no good to society?" Be wary of utilitarian justifications for these sorts of things, because they quickly annihilate any concept of justice that I would like to see in the world.

    There are ways to keep people from killing other people or screwing children. We deprive them of their freedom by locking 'em up in a big cage. A far worse punishment than death, in my humble opinion.
     
  20. geese macrumors 6502a

    geese

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2003
    Location:
    London, UK
    #20
    But the crime has been committed already! Self-defence is not an issue after the crime! Whether its lifetime imprisonment, or death, the criminal isnt going to commit the same crime again/.

    What is your point exactly? You were not eluding to legal pre-meditated killings in your previous posts were you? I dont think anyone here would disagree that you shouldnt kill people before the crime has been committed, unless under clearly exeptional circumstances.

    Clarification- it turned out that Menezes wasnt even running from the police. Wasn't even challenged or approached by the police. Just shot.
     
  21. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #21
    Agreed, innocent people of course are going to die at some point. But I prefer the state hunting down the criminals and maybe kill an innocent in the process, than having the state doing nothing and the bad guys killing innocent people.
    Maybe we have different points of view because of the country we live. For example, in Mexico there is no way in hell you are going to be able to keep a guy from the mafia (drug-dealers) in jail. They buy the ticket out either by money or by force.
    So the best option I see, is that the apprehended drug-dealers must be sentenced to DP. But DP is not allowed in Mexico, the maximum penalty is 40 years of jail, and if you behave good, 30 years. God, I hate the politicians of Mexico, they just don't use their brains.

    What I meant is killing while in defense. You don't kill a guy accidentally while fighting (the times this happens are very few). Killing someone is not that easy, after all.
     
  22. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #22
    Of course it is an issue. That guy that already made a crime has a lot of more probabilities to commit another crime, so you must defend the society against him.

    Sorry, didn't understood what you are asking.:eek:
     
  23. psychofreak Retired

    psychofreak

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #23
    And we do this by putting him in prison, not by killing him...

    Every time an educated society agrees on killing people for their actions when imprisonment is a viable option it is looked back by history as absurd and inhumane.
     
  24. 66217 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2006
    #24
    I think most people don't think of the USA as inhumane and absurd when they attacked Germany in the war. And they killed a lot of people. It was a necessary thing to make.

    It is a shame we have to get to the point of killing someone to have peace, but sometimes it is necessary.
     
  25. SMM macrumors 65816

    SMM

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2006
    Location:
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    #25
    This is one of the few subjects I have never been able to find an opinion I feel comfortable with. My sense tells me that killing is wrong, regardless of the circumstances. Incarceration for life is about the only sure way society can be safe from captured, and convicted, evil people, if we do not execute them. That puts a large burden on taxpayers to house, feed and care for them. Maybe that is not too dear a price to pay for a clear conscience.

    I think capital punishment is not really done as a deterrent, like many believe. I think it is primarily done for revenge. From the victim's perspective, that is justification enough, and who can blame them? Can a humane society condone executions for that reason alone? I do not think so. However, we see considerable evidence that suggests segments of society do not embrace 'humane' as a virtue. Texas is a prime example.
     

Share This Page