Are you for or against capital punishment?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I think what Che is trying to say is that revenge is no basis for a legal/penal system.

On the contrary punishment and threats of punishment are a very sold basis for a penal system.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Oerdin


You are correct that no one will ever be able to give an absolute garrentee that an innocent person won't be convicted. With the correct system the number can be made vanishingly small but you cannot erase it beyond a shadow of a doubt. But this is a numbers game where you must weight the good verses the bad.

If one innocent life is lost but 10,000 innocent lives are saved because the killer was detered then I'd say we were still 9,999 innocent lives ahead. It sucks if your that one but it also sucks if you become one of the women a rapist kills after he's done or a man walking down the street who gets killed for his Swiss watch.

Tru dat.
And as technology progresses, perhaps the certainty of no innocents being put to death will rise even higher. i agree though that their will probably never be a full proof system where no innocent people are put to death with 100% certainty. But that is why CP should only be used when it is beyond a shadow of doubt of his guilt. Even then an innocent my slip through the cracks, but a price that could save many.

Kman

P.S. I draw the line just after flogging. Some may consider this torture, I consider it a spanking. But corporal punishment should only be for felons, not for those on death row. Their punishment is death, and that is high enough IMO.

[Bereta_Eder]

Oedin, yes but not revenge.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Oerdin


On the contrary punishment and threats of punishment are a very sold basis for a penal system.

To an extent, but reform also makes a large part of this system also. I do not agree that the bloodlust of bereaved relatives should be heeded, despite how much sympathy they deserve.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by paiktis22



you can get the same result with convicting them in jail for life.

that way you're protecting society but if they are inoccents they can get out (and receive a huge compensation).

In the US, people are often on death row for as long as 20 years. If they can prove that there is not enough evidence to put them to death without a doubt in their guit, then they can have the DP overturned or postponed until a new trial can be set up (I believe thats how it works). This system has failed in the past mainly in the south, such as in Texas, due to racism and prejudice.

You would only be protecting society if you could detain them seperately from other prisoners who may get out of jail with the mindset of their murderous cellmate or what not - but then you lose the deterant factor of the death penalty.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by paiktis22
you can get the same result with convicting them in jail for life.

that way you're protecting society but if they are inoccents they can get out (and receive a huge compensation).

I've seen conflicting reports about this. The ones I saw that were done by non-political organizations, and thus the most believable, pointed to the death penalty being a stronger deterent then life in prison. Especially since people sentenced to life often don't serve a full life sentence before being parolled.

If the goal is to deter murderers from killing then life in prison isn't as affective as the death penalty.

[Bereta_Eder]

it is if thats what it mean: life in prison = life in prison

[Dinner]

Originally posted by paiktis22
Oedin, yes but not revenge.

Fear of legally sanctioned retribution qualifies as a threat of punishment in my book. Thus it is another effective tool for building a penal system which deters crime.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by loinburger


When Che called Kramer a sick ****, I'm pretty sure that he was referring to Kramer's desire to torture somebody, not necesarily his desire to kill somebody. So, did you mean to say "he deserves to be tortured for his heinous crime"?

NO, but you're splitting hairs. From the context of Che's responses, he seems to be as much against executing him as he is torturing him. BTW, I do think that the man should be tortured to death. Isn't that what he did to the 5 year old girl? He deserves no better.

Did Che say he wasn't outraged? Saying "You're a sick **** for wanting to torture somebody" is not equivalent to saying "murder is good." In fact, it's saying pretty much the opposite, so I'm not sure how you managed to draw the conclusion that Che is pleased by murder...

Yes he did, in a way. He was amazed as to how violently Kramer was reacting to something that didn't directly happen to him. To me, it seems that Che wasn't outraged about it at all. No, he wasn't saying that "murder is good", and my post didn't say anything leading to that. Che's answer was more like" I don't give a **** and anyone who is outraged about it is sick. That man is just as good as a person who didn't commit the crime, so why should he be put down? Anyone who would physically hurt him is sick." Does this clear things up for you, loinburger?

[Bereta_Eder]

oedin, the threat of torture has been canceled from the consciousness of humanity as a "leagl" or "justified" retribution. (even retribution per se has been disqualified since it is revenge). I think the DP will follow that road. the US is sharing the DP with countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia after all.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I think what Che is trying to say is that revenge is no basis for a legal/penal system.

I think that Che says a lot of things. Does Che even believe in a legal system, or is he too far into his Communist dream land to even concede that people need laws to live with each other?

[Bereta_Eder]

nationalist you're very funny.

go and see if they let you torture the man who did that.

that's the laws you want.

[Provost Harrison]

Che is a realist. Why are the likes of you so quick to resort to insult and saying that those who don't agree with your worldview life in a 'dreamworld'. Construct some rational arguments, because he has a valid point!

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


To an extent, but reform also makes a large part of this system also. I do not agree that the bloodlust of bereaved relatives should be heeded, despite how much sympathy they deserve.

Reform is just and can work for thieves and vandals. Murderers and rapists, on the otherhand, do not deserve a second chance. THey have demonstrated that they cannot live within the constraints of human society; therefore they should be removed. Rapists deserve life in prison. Murderers (especially people who murder children!) deserve death. No second chances for murderes. After all, does their victim have a second chance?

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by paiktis22
it is if thats what it mean: life in prison = life in prison

Even then it wouldnt be nearly as big of a deterant. LIfe in US prisons is fairly cushy. If I were homeless or wa having problems adequately feeding myself, the US prison system would be a step up in quality of life. Unless this is changed drastically, with murderers doing forced labor and other uncomfortable things more often (not just for punishment, but also to help pay their cost of being in prison, which is like $45,000 a year, per prison inmate IIRC. That includes security wages and such), and this being advertised to get the message out to the public that prison really sucks, especially if you have to spend the rest of your life in it w/o perole, then that might be a suitable deterrant for me to replace the DP. But Im sure some of those serving life might rather want to die after a couple decades of hard manuel labor...heh. If that ever happens - which it probably wont because people who are upset about the death penalty will be the ones who will be crying about how its too cruel. ITS FRIGGIN PRISON edit: for murderers! ITS SUPPOSED TO BE CRUEL. ITS WHERE CRUEL PEOPLE GO. Oh well...

Kman