Starport: Galactic Empires

If someone knowingly kills someone else AND it was premeditated, then I'm pro-death penalty.

However, the problem is that people have been wrongly convicted before, and I have no doubt it'll happen again. So unless you can be 100% certain that the crime was committed, I can't justify innocent people being killed. In the end, no, the death penalty is a bad idea.

With DNA testing this will be a decreasing argument for this topic. No human has the same DNA, so it is increasingly hard to convict people whom are inoccent of a crime.

DNA evidence can be faked. Source: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... 2009-08-18

It's illegal to kill an inoccent person, but it isn't illegal when you go through judical process and the person is convicted of the crime and sentenced to death. Your doing the world a favor by eradicating the worthless being from exsistance, once you kill and inoccent person, you are no longer considered a human in my eyes. So in my eyes it isn't killing another human.

Like Tooky Williams? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Williams

Dave34 wrote:
It's illegal to kill an inoccent person, but it isn't illegal when you go through judical process and the person is convicted of the crime and sentenced to death. Your doing the world a favor by eradicating the worthless being from exsistance, once you kill and inoccent person, you are no longer considered a human in my eyes. So in my eyes it isn't killing another human.

what you are describing is deindividulatisation, which is the loosenng of normal constraints on behavior when people can't be identified, leading to an increase in impulsive and deviant acts (Lea, Spears, & De Groot, 2001). It's bad.



again, from aronson, wilson & akert, 2007, p.540:

opponents of the death penalty point out that, as we mentioned, most murders are crimes of passion that are not preceded by a rational consideration of the consequences. Because people are not considering the consequences of their actions, the death penalty does not act as a detterent.

Dave34 wrote: With DNA testing this will be a decreasing argument for this topic. No human has the same DNA, so it is increasingly hard to convict people whom are inoccent of a crime.

Since the death penalty was reinstated in the United States in 1976, one person has been freed from death row for every seven people who have been executed.


research is your friend!

devilwolf wrote:And MA, it is not the govt. who gives that punishment, it is a jury of 12 who hear the trial, and after deliberation, hand down the sentence. Also, before it is carried out, there are at least 5 levels of appeals that *most of the guilty use before it is carried out.

Yea, that's what I feared. In stead of objective professionals whose job it is and who have been trained to make objective assessments you've got 12 people who'd rather be watching Oprah and who are riddled with biases and logical fallacies.

No wonder there've been people wrongfully murdered by the justice system.

Dave34 wrote:It's illegal to kill an inoccent person, but it isn't illegal when you go through judical process and the person is convicted of the crime and sentenced to death. Your doing the world a favor by eradicating the worthless being from exsistance, once you kill and inoccent person, you are no longer considered a human in my eyes. So in my eyes it isn't killing another human.

I'm not talking about what is legal or not. I'm talking about what is right or wrong. The law can be wrong. Once it was legal to hold people in slavery, and then the law changed.

Why this distinction between "innocent" and "guilty"? It's completely arbitrary. Depending on the criteria everyone is guilty and everyone is innocent. A great philisopher once said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". He was right. In a way we're all guilty and all innocent. Who's to say a murderer would've still murdered if society had a safety net that would've protected him from abusive parents? Who's to say a murderer would have still taken the life of a police officer if he didn't have the misfortune of living in California and being on this third strike? Who's to say a woman would steal if she had welfare to fall back on? Who's to say an addict would rob someone for money if someone would pay him trough detox? Who's to say someone would turn to crime and not be a productive member of society if they didn't have substance abuse on their permanent record just because they smoked pot when in the wrong country?

There are so many situations where it's obvious society is inherently unfair and yet we act as if people honestly have a choice. We completely disregard everything that wrongfully influences people. Why? Because otherwise we'd have to admit we're in part to blame. And we're too wild and crazy guy to admit that.

With DNA testing this will be a decreasing argument for this topic. No human has the same DNA, so it is increasingly hard to convict people whom are inoccent of a crime.

Oh, so let's forget those who were murdered just because they were convicted before DNA testing was developed?

And you're just hoping DNA testing will absolve your guilty conscience. Completely ignoring the fact that not all crime scenes have DNA evidence.

Lazerus wrote:Sorry for Double post.
Solution. In some islamic states and indo-chinese cultures.
Commit a crime, get an appendage chopped off.
problem solved and great detterent not to commit again

In actuality these people have no choice but to turn to petty crime and begging, unable to be productive members of society. After all. They've been marked as criminals AND they can hardly work anymore.

MadAce wrote:Why this distinction between "innocent" and "guilty"? It's completely arbitrary. Depending on the criteria everyone is guilty and everyone is innocent.

you lying piece of dogsdoodies. you call me guilty? -nox- is innocent! Innocent I tell you!

-nox- wrote:

MadAce wrote:Why this distinction between "innocent" and "guilty"? It's completely arbitrary. Depending on the criteria everyone is guilty and everyone is innocent.

you lying piece of dogsdoodies. you call me guilty? -nox- is innocent! Innocent I tell you!

You're GUILTY! *throws stone*

its not that im PRO death, but im ANTI taxpayers giving you free room and board for the rest of your life. anyone that is against death should be cordially invited to take the offender into their own home and pay for them. personally, i would prefer a death sentence over a life sentence (talking about for myself should i be convicted of some major BBQ) any day of the week, but i guess thats just me.

tekkamanblade wrote:its not that im PRO death, but im ANTI taxpayers giving you free room and board for the rest of your life. anyone that is against death should be cordially invited to take the offender into their own home and pay for them. personally, i would prefer a death sentence over a life sentence (talking about for myself should i be convicted of some major BBQ) any day of the week, but i guess thats just me.

You do realise that in the US taxpayers pay more for capital punishment than for life in prison? Your reasoning is pretty poor if you don't research this.

MuTAnT wrote:

tekkamanblade wrote:its not that im PRO death, but im ANTI taxpayers giving you free room and board for the rest of your life. anyone that is against death should be cordially invited to take the offender into their own home and pay for them. personally, i would prefer a death sentence over a life sentence (talking about for myself should i be convicted of some major BBQ) any day of the week, but i guess thats just me.

You do realise that in the US taxpayers pay more for capital punishment than for life in prison? You reasoning is pretty poor if you don't research this.

Mutant is right. All the potential appeals even after conviction can lead to incredible amounts of money from the public's pocket. A good amount of these appeals are unable to be made when facing a life sentence. However, although the appeals may be numerous, it does not rid the system of wrongful executions. And lastly, I would like to say Jumbalaya.

Wagon wrote:

MuTAnT wrote:

tekkamanblade wrote:its not that im PRO death, but im ANTI taxpayers giving you free room and board for the rest of your life. anyone that is against death should be cordially invited to take the offender into their own home and pay for them. personally, i would prefer a death sentence over a life sentence (talking about for myself should i be convicted of some major BBQ) any day of the week, but i guess thats just me.

You do realise that in the US taxpayers pay more for capital punishment than for life in prison? You reasoning is pretty poor if you don't research this.

Mutant is right. All the potential appeals even after conviction can lead to incredible amounts of money from the public's pocket. A good amount of these appeals are unable to be made when facing a life sentence. However, although the appeals may be numerous, it does not rid the system of wrongful executions. And lastly, I would like to say Jumbalaya.

well said, wombat.

Dave34 wrote:All this tells me is madace doesn't have the balls to send someone to the copping block, never send a boy to do a mans job.

Actually, I have so much balls that I'm willing to accept my part of the collective responsibility we all hold.

In fact, I'm so immensely courageous that I'm willing to fight my own primitive urges such as a lust for revenge to eventually support a truly civilized society.


Now THAT's having balls.

Dave34 wrote:

MadAce wrote:

Dave34 wrote:All this tells me is madace doesn't have the balls to send someone to the copping block, never send a boy to do a mans job.

Actually, I have so much balls that I'm willing to accept my part of the collective responsibility we all hold.

In fact, I'm so immensely courageous that I'm willing to fight my own primitive urges such as a lust for revenge to eventually support a truly civilized society.


Now THAT's having balls.

No its not, its having a vagina.

in order for any discussion debate/to remain civilized and conclusive, the creator of the topic should either stay neutral or respectively choose a side

..or else it just becomes a proclamation of one's ideas and how they are superior to everybody elses

Dave34 wrote:All this tells me is madace doesn't have the balls to send someone to the copping block, never send a boy to do a mans job.

seriously dude, I do all that work to find out some good scientific research to show my side of the argument and you come with this? "Madace has no balls/a vagina". really...

dude...

Dave34 wrote:

MadAce wrote:

Dave34 wrote:All this tells me is madace doesn't have the balls to send someone to the copping block, never send a boy to do a mans job.

Actually, I have so much balls that I'm willing to accept my part of the collective responsibility we all hold.

In fact, I'm so immensely courageous that I'm willing to fight my own primitive urges such as a lust for revenge to eventually support a truly civilized society.


Now THAT's having balls.

No its not, its having a vagina.

No, you're a retard.

It's amazing that someone who'd be thrown of a cliff as a newborn baby in ancient Sparta(death penalty for retardation there) is so fond of the death penalty.

MuTAnT wrote:

tekkamanblade wrote:its not that im PRO death, but im ANTI taxpayers giving you free room and board for the rest of your life. anyone that is against death should be cordially invited to take the offender into their own home and pay for them. personally, i would prefer a death sentence over a life sentence (talking about for myself should i be convicted of some major BBQ) any day of the week, but i guess thats just me.

You do realise that in the US taxpayers pay more for capital punishment than for life in prison? Your reasoning is pretty poor if you don't research this.

Now that the wife is letting me on the computer I can respond a bit.

US taxpayers only pay more for capital punishment due to all the procedure and prison time involved. If we threw in an express lane or killed them on the spot immediately after conviction, I think it would be quite a bit cheaper than a life sentence. However, there would be a large increase in innocent deaths.

Perhaps I'm a bit barbaric, but I would prefer capital punishment for more crimes than the limited few we have now. Until I'm the innocent being killed I have no qualms about it nor do I care about the morality. At the same time...it does not really work as a deterrent for crimes. Actually, the current judicial system is a mess in progress and needs fundamental changing.

Honestly I don't mind the increased taxes to keep a certain number of individuals from killing my family.

That said, I, like most of the public, don't want innocents to die for crimes they did not commit.

Personally I disagree with the death penalty on almost every level.

Yet, the masterminds (or those that got caught) of 9/11 get a ticket to deathville in my book...but otherwise It's reserved for the worsted of the worsted.

meaning child rapists. serial killers. and treason outside of reason.

IMHO

-Major

SiN wrote:Now that the wife is letting me on the computer I can respond a bit.

US taxpayers only pay more for capital punishment due to all the procedure and prison time involved. If we threw in an express lane or killed them on the spot immediately after conviction, I think it would be quite a bit cheaper than a life sentence. However, there would be a large increase in innocent deaths.

Express lane for capital punishment? The last thing you want is to cut corners in the procedure to find people guilty/innocent. Every innocent person that is convicted or killed is a failing in the system. The system should protect those that are innocent, you can't just cut out all the appeal systems and include innocent deaths as a statistic.
That's monstrous.

meaning child rapists...

Amazingly, the US Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to issue the death penalty to rapists of any sort.

Last week a 33yr old man in the UK was sentenced to life in prison for the kidnap, rape and murder of a girl he 'met' on face-book after posing as a teenage boy. He committed this offence a matter of months after being released from prison after serving time for a previous sexual assault.

This man in my opinion has relinquished any right to, not only be a member of society but also be a member of the human race.

In our modern, hand-wringing, PR conscious, liberal, enlightened age even suggesting that this mans crimes are worthy of death would cause gasps of outrage and disapproval however, I would be interested to hear someone arguing that this man deserves to live, something he denied the poor innocent victim he brutally raped and murdered.

Is 2010 society a better one compared with a couple of generations ago when harsher punishments were meeted out to criminals?

"Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them?"

"Is it really our job to decide who lives and who dies?"
- Spiderman's grandma

removed.

as far as accidently killing an innocent man goes, that sucks. but i think that has little to do with the DP, and more to do with faulty evidence and/or stupid jurers. true, he'd be alive and able to continue his life if he'd gotten a life sentence.. but he'd still have lost numerous years in prison. not to mention sentences are decided AFTER the persons guilt. the problem there is with the guilty/not guilty, not with the sentence.

theres a bigger picture too.. prisons are overcrowded.. so despite the tree-hugging opposition, id be in favor of the DP as an equivalent to.. a life sentence, or a life sentence without parole.. something like that. especially if/when it comes down to killing cold-hearted killers/rapists, or letting lesser criminals out prematurely and possibly having innocent lives lost because of it.

lol @ the arctic/antarctic idea.. that worked for australia, didnt it? i dont know how all that went down, i just know that australia served as a prisoner dumpster. anyway, if we dump the prisoners there alive.. maybe it'd be enough to put the tree-hugging hearts at ease while they die anyway

GRAWRG. wrote:lol @ the arctic/antarctic idea.. that worked for australia, didnt it? i dont know how all that went down, i just know that australia served as a prisoner dumpster

essentially true. they sent the worst criminals to the best place in the world.

TY england

removed.

i dont know if id be able to take a helpless persons life, but i feel like i could. the people i feel should get the DP are not the ones who'd be sat there shaking, scared to die. it'd be the ones who're cold and hopeless.

and you're not a traditional tree hugger mcgrod.

Dave34 wrote:We should: Kill them, then burn them as fuel to power our cities, then use the ashes as fertilizer for our crops.

I support this idea... vote dave34 for the next united states president, and all of the senate, and the congress while we are at it. In fact lets just make him emperor, but still call him president to keep the people happy.

MadAce wrote:The death penalty is counter-productive, barbaric and immoral.

So all these ppl that go on killing spree's and kill 10-20 people, lets just send them to Northern Belgium, let madace deal with them, cause he can keep them all in line.

nine-breaker wrote:So all these ppl that go on killing spree's and kill 10-20 people, lets just send them to Northern Belgium, let madace deal with them, cause he can keep them all in line.

or just put them in prison...

-nox- wrote:

nine-breaker wrote:So all these ppl that go on killing spree's and kill 10-20 people, lets just send them to Northern Belgium, let madace deal with them, cause he can keep them all in line.

or just put them in prison...

Well, you see, America is a very violent country, and we have millions of murderers, rapists, and worse. If we just imprisoned all of them, we would be running outta room. These ppl don't deserve to live any way, so we just kill'em.

nine-breaker wrote: Well, you see, America is a very violent country,

nine-breaker wrote: These ppl don't deserve to live any way, so we just kill'em.

now, what's wrong with that?

nope, looks fine to me