Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum

Recommended Posts

Okay guys this has been bothering for a while. The death penalty. I believe they should enforce the death penalty much more than they do. I've read a story about how this 14 year old boy killed his parents because they wouldn't let him have a party. The article said that he also stabbed the dad over 50 times. He has been on trial, but he's going to get life in prison. Now what the heck? How should he get a second chance? He's living a better life than a homeless person. He's got food, water, shelter, a bed, tv, and probably more stuff that he shouldn't have. I think that this boy should get the death penalty. Yes it does sound harsh, but that boy is never coming back. He'll never be the same again. Plus what really makes me go into a mind warp is that we are paying for him to live. We tax payers are paying for him to enjoy his life in prison. Another thing is that even if he is on the death penalty it's not like he'll get it immediately. It'll be 15 years before he probably get it and we're paying for him that whole time! If we enforced the death penalty more we would save time, money, and a lot of stress. If you murder someone I think the death penalty is just fine. What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay guys this has been bothering for a while. The death penalty. I believe they should enforce the death penalty much more than they do. I've read a story about how this 14 year old boy killed his parents because they wouldn't let him have a party. The article said that he also stabbed the dad over 50 times. He has been on trial, but he's going to get life in prison. Now what the heck? How should he get a second chance? He's living a better life than a homeless person. He's got food, water, shelter, a bed, tv, and probably more stuff that he shouldn't have. I think that this boy should get the death penalty. Yes it does sound harsh, but that boy is never coming back. He'll never be the same again. Plus what really makes me go into a mind warp is that we are paying for him to live. We tax payers are paying for him to enjoy his life in prison. Another thing is that even if he is on the death penalty it's not like he'll get it immediately. It'll be 15 years before he probably get it and we're paying for him that whole time! If we enforced the death penalty more we would save time, money, and a lot of stress. If you murder someone I think the death penalty is just fine. What do you think?

Why should anybody decide who does or does not get to live? What makes it such that any human has that power over one another? What qualities do you need? I think it's not unreasonable, and very much necessary, to have judges who judge people like this daily. But at what point do we get to say that we are so right that we get to kill someone? Does that really make us any better?

Don't forget that things like this are extreme cases. Most people aren't going to kill their parents at the age of 14 just because they refuse to let him have a party (if possible, it'd be nice to get a source for that piece of news). I wouldn't be surprised if this kid isn't mentally stable.

Finally, don't forget that there are plenty of deaths that are due to wrongful execution. That fact is already enough for me to take an anti-death penalty stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless the death penalty can be made entirely accurate (many innocent people have been killed), it seems to be a source of great injustice.

 

In your extreme example, something clearly went wrong: mental instability, very, very poor upbringing, whatever. What is perhaps society's ideal is to rehabilitate him, to give him a second chance, because that life could still be turned around. That's much better than anyone dying. the 14 year old brain isn't even fully developed.

 

However, the prison system certainly lacks a few things, and isn't the best way to rehabilitate someone at all. Supposedly, Norway has the best way of doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay guys this has been bothering for a while. The death penalty. I believe they should enforce the death penalty much more than they do. I've read a story about how this 14 year old boy killed his parents because they wouldn't let him have a party. The article said that he also stabbed the dad over 50 times. He has been on trial, but he's going to get life in prison. Now what the heck? How should he get a second chance? He's living a better life than a homeless person. He's got food, water, shelter, a bed, tv, and probably more stuff that he shouldn't have. I think that this boy should get the death penalty. Yes it does sound harsh, but that boy is never coming back. He'll never be the same again. Plus what really makes me go into a mind warp is that we are paying for him to live. We tax payers are paying for him to enjoy his life in prison. Another thing is that even if he is on the death penalty it's not like he'll get it immediately. It'll be 15 years before he probably get it and we're paying for him that whole time! If we enforced the death penalty more we would save time, money, and a lot of stress. If you murder someone I think the death penalty is just fine. What do you think?

a couple things i find wrong with this statement.

 

1) death penalty costs more than life in prison because of all the legal fees

2) who is to say he's enjoying it all, obviously this is something only he can say but if i had to guess i'd say he isn't.

 

 

go read the wiki imo it's got lots of good info on this stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal of any self-respecting modern justice system should be to rehabilitate nonviolent and minor offenders and sequester violent offenders from society.

 

Gee…that's funny…I don't see anything about offing offenders in there. That's because executions have no place in a self-respecting modern justice system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it's hypocritical to endorse the death penalty. You impose the death penalty because you want to punish murderers, right? But if you have a death penalty, you're guaranteed to murder innocent people, yourself! There have been lots of examples of people on death row who were exonerated. How many innocent people have been wrongly put to death by the death penalty? Murdering even one innocent person in the name of making sure you get all the bad guys is totally unacceptable to me (and you'll never get all the bad guys anyway).

 

And if you just want to protect the public from murderers, you can do that easily with life in prison, which gives you the option of releasing an innocent person who's later exonerated.

Edited by Fredashay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal of any self-respecting modern justice system should be to rehabilitate nonviolent and minor offenders and sequester violent offenders from society.

 

Gee…that's funny…I don't see anything about offing offenders in there. That's because executions have no place in a self-respecting modern justice system.

Your theory is what should be practiced when the punishments aren't life penalties.

 

What if someone is given, say, 3 life sentences for raping and killing young children? That happens. Rehabilitation shouldn't be a priority because the person will not be assimilated back into society. There is no need to try and fix the incorrect behavior.

 

I like the idea of the death penalty. I've always been an eye for an eye. If you are guilty of some incredibly heinous actions, you deserve to die. The system just needs to be fine tuned.

 

The only major drawback is that it is expensive to kill someone, but that could be fixed very easily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal of any self-respecting modern justice system should be to rehabilitate nonviolent and minor offenders and sequester violent offenders from society.

 

Gee…that's funny…I don't see anything about offing offenders in there. That's because executions have no place in a self-respecting modern justice system.

Your theory is what should be practiced when the punishments aren't life penalties.

 

What if someone is given, say, 3 life sentences for raping and killing young children? That happens. Rehabilitation shouldn't be a priority because the person will not be assimilated back into society. There is no need to try and fix the incorrect behavior.

Already covered this problem.

 

The goal of any self-respecting modern justice system should be to rehabilitate nonviolent and minor offenders and sequester violent offenders from society.

 

I quote from the American Heritage Dictionary:

 

Sequester v. 2. To remove or set apart; segregate

 

That is to say, keep repeat violent offenders cordoned off from society and throw away the key. This pattern has been used in several Scandinavian countries to incredibly successful results—first-time offender recidivism rates are dropping quite sharply and violent crime has been going down since many justice systems like Norway's have begun opting to only lock away and cordon off violent offenders.

Edited by Georgia Sparkle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The goal of any self-respecting modern justice system should be to rehabilitate nonviolent and minor offenders and sequester violent offenders from society.

 

Gee…that's funny…I don't see anything about offing offenders in there. That's because executions have no place in a self-respecting modern justice system.

Your theory is what should be practiced when the punishments aren't life penalties.

 

What if someone is given, say, 3 life sentences for raping and killing young children? That happens. Rehabilitation shouldn't be a priority because the person will not be assimilated back into society. There is no need to try and fix the incorrect behavior.

Already covered this problem.

 

The goal of any self-respecting modern justice system should be to rehabilitate nonviolent and minor offenders and sequester violent offenders from society.

 

I quote from the American Heritage Dictionary:

 

Sequester v. 2. To remove or set apart; segregate

 

That is to say, keep repeat violent offenders cordoned off from society and throw away the key. This pattern has been used in several Scandinavian countries to incredibly successful results—first-time offender recidivism rates are dropping quite sharply and violent crime has been going down since many justice systems like Norway's have begun opting to only lock away and cordon off violent offenders.

Death is a permanent form of sequestering someone :P

 

And I do completely agree with your first point. People who commit petty crimes should simply be rehabilitated and allowed to go back to society, hopefully fixing the problems.

 

And I also think that not all violent cases are deserving of the death penalty. It should only be used in extreme circumstances, like serial killers and whatnot. A single murder or rape isn't deserving of the death penalty. Just lock them up for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Death is a permanent form of sequestering someone
...and irreversible in case of mistakes.

 

And if you want to get nerds to agree with an abolitionist position, just say "Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Death is a permanent form of sequestering someone
...and irreversible in case of mistakes.

 

And if you want to get nerds to agree with an abolitionist position, just say "Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." :P

I just had to post to say I lol'd. :P

Edited by Micael Fatia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Death is a permanent form of sequestering someone
...and irreversible in case of mistakes.

 

And if you want to get nerds to agree with an abolitionist position, just say "Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." :P

 

Lol Lord of the Rings quotes, classic. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Death is a permanent form of sequestering someone
...and irreversible in case of mistakes.

Many people are imprisoned by mistake, sometimes for very long periods of time.

 

We should probably get rid of prisons too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Death is a permanent form of sequestering someone
...and irreversible in case of mistakes.

Many people are imprisoned by mistake, sometimes for very long periods of time.

 

We should probably get rid of prisons too.

You can release someone from prison, but you can't undie them after you give them a lethal cocktail of chemicals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Death is a permanent form of sequestering someone
...and irreversible in case of mistakes.

Many people are imprisoned by mistake, sometimes for very long periods of time.

 

We should probably get rid of prisons too.

You can release someone from prison, but you can't undie them after you give them a lethal cocktail of chemicals.

I would bet the percentages of prisoners who are wrongly jailed and don't get released are pretty comparable to people who are given the death penalty wrongly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Death is a permanent form of sequestering someone
...and irreversible in case of mistakes.

Many people are imprisoned by mistake, sometimes for very long periods of time.

 

We should probably get rid of prisons too.

You can release someone from prison, but you can't undie them after you give them a lethal cocktail of chemicals.

I would bet the percentages of prisoners who are wrongly jailed and don't get released are pretty comparable to people who are given the death penalty wrongly.

But you haven't killed them, and you haven't killed them wrongly (which, iirc, is pretty much murder). Prisoners, in civil countries, are still leading their life. Corpses, not quite so.

 

Swedish example:

e67wb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Death is a permanent form of sequestering someone
...and irreversible in case of mistakes.

 

And if you want to get nerds to agree with an abolitionist position, just say "Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." :P

 

iirc, you posted the same quote towards me in regards to the same topic a year or so ago :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Death is a permanent form of sequestering someone
...and irreversible in case of mistakes.

 

And if you want to get nerds to agree with an abolitionist position, just say "Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends." :P

 

iirc, you posted the same quote towards me in regards to the same topic a year or so ago :P

Yeah, it's a repost from the '50s of the last century :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay guys new story today. I bet most of you have heard of the Denver Theater Shooting. This guy had no criminal record and then he just walks into the midnight premiere of the Dark Knight and shoots 40 plus rounds in the crowd. He killed I believe 12 and injured 50.

 

Now tell me. Shouldn't that person get the death penalty? I bet he won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay guys new story today. I bet most of you have heard of the Denver Theater Shooting. This guy had no criminal record and then he just walks into the midnight premiere of the Dark Knight and shoots 40 plus rounds in the crowd. He killed I believe 12 and injured 50.

 

Now tell me. Shouldn't that person get the death penalty? I bet he won't.

Apart from the fact that my response would be obvious given my earlier posts, would it make any difference if he had any criminal record? If he's to receive the death penalty like so, what would happen if he had a criminal record? Hanged, drawn and quartered? Hung on a gibbet for weeks? :/

 

And - for clarity - my response is "no, he shouldn't, unless you wish to be an accomplice and bring the count to 13."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay guys new story today. I bet most of you have heard of the Denver Theater Shooting. This guy had no criminal record and then he just walks into the midnight premiere of the Dark Knight and shoots 40 plus rounds in the crowd. He killed I believe 12 and injured 50.

 

Now tell me. Shouldn't that person get the death penalty? I bet he won't.

Nope. He should not. Why should we be reduced to ending people's lives? Does that make us any better than him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.