- Forum
- Lounge
- Death Penalty
- Page 2
Death Penalty
@Mats
I do not understand why you put a quote there as the text after it does not correlate with it. Just to re-explain what I meant: Assume someone has killed someone (or ten bajillion people, it makes no difference), then according to the rules I set out, that person must then be killed. The person who kills that person must then, by the same set of laws, be killed.
In my opinion, he made the correct decision in situation B. He had no way of knowing what the person would do (i.e if they would kill again). Also, it is not person A or person B's right to kill anyone or to decide who lives or dies.
I do not understand why you put a quote there as the text after it does not correlate with it. Just to re-explain what I meant: Assume someone has killed someone (or ten bajillion people, it makes no difference), then according to the rules I set out, that person must then be killed. The person who kills that person must then, by the same set of laws, be killed.
| 1) person A has committed 3 murders already and intends to commit more. Police officer B, shoots and kills person A, when person A is seen fleeing a crime scene. This results in 4 deaths. 2) Person A has committed 3 murders already and intends to commit more. Person B has the opportunity to end person A's life, but instead lets them get away. Person A commits 7 more murders before finally being captured by non-lethal means. Result is 11 deaths. |
In my opinion, he made the correct decision in situation B. He had no way of knowing what the person would do (i.e if they would kill again). Also, it is not person A or person B's right to kill anyone or to decide who lives or dies.
In the quote you say that person A should be killed themselves. My argument is if person A does know what person B will do, does this still hold. For instance, if person B said publicly they won't stop killing and intend to continue killing as many people as possible as fast as they can. Perhaps person B is shooting a weapon in school, runs out of bullets, quickly reloads and then starts shooting again. Would an officer in that school be at fault to shoot person B?
I think an action is not black or white. Statements such as 'killing is always wrong' should become 'killing is generally a bad thing, but in certain situations may be the best course of action."
Are you vegetarian?
I think an action is not black or white. Statements such as 'killing is always wrong' should become 'killing is generally a bad thing, but in certain situations may be the best course of action."
| I believe that is shouldn't, simply because I am religious and believe that we do not have the right to end another's life |
Are you vegetarian?
| Script Coder wrote: |
|---|
| person A or person B's right |
Where do rights come from? If rights derive from the authority of collective society (however people have organized themselves), and that same collective has placed the authority to kill in the hands of a proxy (in this case, the police officer) for the benefit of the collective, what right has been violated?
@Script Coder:
I appreciate the moral idealism, but IMO that's not realistic. Having legal absolutes is almost always a bad idea. Saying we should never execute anyone ever is IMO just as bad of an idea as saying we should execute for every single murder conviction. Reality has too many shades of gray to be governed by strict absolutes.
How about another contrived scenario:
- Badman rapes and kills 5 girls, and videotapes the crimes as a fetish.
- Police discover tapes, capture Badman
- Badman goes to prison
- In prison, Badman continues to rape and kill other prisoners. And let's even say he gets a guard too (just in case you don't think killing prisoners is a big enough deal).
How, as a society, do you deal with something like this? Badman is obviously a danger to anyone he comes in contact with, yet if we are sticking to these moral absolutes, we deny ourselves the one option which guarantees safety.
Unfortunately... with or without the right to do so.... the decision to kill/let live is a decision anyone and everyone can make. To say that "nobody can make that decision" is turning a blind eye to reality.
I appreciate the moral idealism, but IMO that's not realistic. Having legal absolutes is almost always a bad idea. Saying we should never execute anyone ever is IMO just as bad of an idea as saying we should execute for every single murder conviction. Reality has too many shades of gray to be governed by strict absolutes.
How about another contrived scenario:
- Badman rapes and kills 5 girls, and videotapes the crimes as a fetish.
- Police discover tapes, capture Badman
- Badman goes to prison
- In prison, Badman continues to rape and kill other prisoners. And let's even say he gets a guard too (just in case you don't think killing prisoners is a big enough deal).
How, as a society, do you deal with something like this? Badman is obviously a danger to anyone he comes in contact with, yet if we are sticking to these moral absolutes, we deny ourselves the one option which guarantees safety.
| Also, it is not person A or person B's right to kill anyone or to decide who lives or dies. |
Unfortunately... with or without the right to do so.... the decision to kill/let live is a decision anyone and everyone can make. To say that "nobody can make that decision" is turning a blind eye to reality.
@Disch
Would it really be so hard to put Badman in solitary? Just because he's a danger now doesn't mean there isn't a chance of him reforming with intensive psychological therapy (which yes I know it never happens in the US penal system but we're talking theoretical situations here). By executing him, you're essentially stating that he's not worth rehabilitating.
@Cheraphy
Holy crap yes it is Albatross. n_n Not much is up. And for you? I see you got your name changed. >_>
-Albatross
Would it really be so hard to put Badman in solitary? Just because he's a danger now doesn't mean there isn't a chance of him reforming with intensive psychological therapy (which yes I know it never happens in the US penal system but we're talking theoretical situations here). By executing him, you're essentially stating that he's not worth rehabilitating.
@Cheraphy
Holy crap yes it is Albatross. n_n Not much is up. And for you? I see you got your name changed. >_>
-Albatross
| Would it really be so hard to put Badman in solitary? |
Solitary still involves occasional human contact. If you're talking complete isolation... then IMO that's worse than the death penalty and absolutely destroys any chance of rehabilitation. Isolation and sanity do not have a good history with each other.
| Just because he's a danger now doesn't mean there isn't a chance of him reforming with intensive psychological therapy |
For arguments sake, let's say that has been tried and failed. Furthermore... the doctor who got in the room to talk with/analyze him was killed. What then?
The point I'm trying to get across here is sometimes people are just so far gone that it really is not worth the investment of time/money/risk to try and rehabilitate. In those extremest of the extreme cases... capital punishment should be considered.
Well, in that case I might agree. I suppose there are circumstances in which capital punishment is worth considering. I just think that they're quite rare and shouldn't be taken lightly.
-Albatross
-Albatross
Last edited on
Death penalty should always be an option. I don't think it should be crossed out entirely. Society needs to have proper punishment for crimes, and some crimes (not going to debate what crimes) likely deserve capital punishment. There was a case that happened in my hometown that I believe deserves capital punishment, and prosecution tried for it but it ended up settling as life without parole.
http://cjonline.com/news/2013-01-10/leftwich-pleads-guilty-capital-murder-morgart-killing
http://cjonline.com/news/2013-01-10/leftwich-pleads-guilty-capital-murder-morgart-killing
See, this is one of the cases that I would label as not being something that should garner the death penalty. To kill him for his murder, rape, and assaults would be a waste of a salvageable life.
Even life without parole strikes me as a bit of a waste, because once behind bars, there's little he can do but suffer. If the system wants him to suffer for what he did, well, I can understand that. Maybe he should, but that's not something I'm certain of.
-Albatross
Even life without parole strikes me as a bit of a waste, because once behind bars, there's little he can do but suffer. If the system wants him to suffer for what he did, well, I can understand that. Maybe he should, but that's not something I'm certain of.
-Albatross
No, Albatross is dead. The posting on this account is due to the combined efforts of an infinite number of monkeys, after they gave up on reproducing Hamlet.
It's good to see you all. :)
-Albatross
Edit: See post below this one please.
It's good to see you all. :)
-Albatross
Edit: See post below this one please.
Last edited on
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand a thread is getting derailed already...
http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/115008/
http://www.cplusplus.com/forum/lounge/115008/
closed account (N36fSL3A)
We'll the Booty Warrior enjoys prison and raping inmates. Should he be lethally injected?
| Mats wrote: |
|---|
| In the quote you say that person A should be killed themselves. My argument is if person A does know what person B will do, does this still hold. For instance, if person B said publicly they won't stop killing and intend to continue killing as many people as possible as fast as they can. Perhaps person B is shooting a weapon in school, runs out of bullets, quickly reloads and then starts shooting again. Would an officer in that school be at fault to shoot person B? |
Well no, but shoot and kill are different things, please get the difference very clear. It would not be wrong to shoot him in say the leg, just to disarm him, but shooting to kill him is wrong?
| Mats wrote: |
|---|
| Are you vegetarian? |
You are clearly making yourself out to be an uneducated baboon (note I said making your self out to be, I made no name-calls). Vegetarianism is not a religion.
| booradley60 wrote: |
|---|
| Where do rights come from? |
One of the (many) definitions of "right" is "a moral
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| How about another contrived scenario: - Badman rapes and kills 5 girls, and videotapes the crimes as a fetish. - Police discover tapes, capture Badman - Badman goes to prison - In prison, Badman continues to rape and kill other prisoners. And let's even say he gets a guard too (just in case you don't think killing prisoners is a big enough deal). |
| Disch wrote: |
|---|
| Furthermore... the doctor who got in the room to talk with/analyze him was killed |
How incorrectly are you imprisoning someone like that? Surely after the second prisoner you realise that he should be bound in tight chains, and kept a noticeable distance from other prisoners and guards.
| How incorrectly are you imprisoning someone like that? Surely after the second prisoner you realise that he should be bound in tight chains, and kept a noticeable distance from other prisoners and guards. |
So your solution is to keep him bound in chains and keep him isolated from other people his entire life.
That is somehow more humane than execution?
| So your solution is to keep him bound in chains and keep him isolated from other people his entire life. |
I do not recall using or referring to isolation. Also, keeping him bound in chains when around others is not a bad idea, also putting him in his own cell would definitely help (not I said own cell, I did not say solitary confinement).
@Script Coder
I wondered if you thought this extend to any other living thing other than a human? And what happens if someone is born with only 99.7% of the typical DNA of a human? What if it's 99.6%? Where is your cut off point for who can and cannot be saved?
| I believe that is shouldn't, simply because I am religious and believe that we do not have the right to end another's life |
I wondered if you thought this extend to any other living thing other than a human? And what happens if someone is born with only 99.7% of the typical DNA of a human? What if it's 99.6%? Where is your cut off point for who can and cannot be saved?
The problem is that in the world that we live in (note I'm not referring countries) there is lot of shit talk about how the prisoners are being helped by therapist and doctors and such but we all know that nothing is actually done. And we also know that the most of the serial killers are kept in total isolation so I'm with Disch on this one. If it was me in that situation I'd say "Kill me" because spending the rest of your life with no human contact is a lot worse than execution.
But on the first question. Capital punishment is of course an option but only in cases there is absolutely no margin of chance of the person convicted not being guilty. So in this situation its the judge criteria that stands. But I think we can never be 100% sure
But on the first question. Capital punishment is of course an option but only in cases there is absolutely no margin of chance of the person convicted not being guilty. So in this situation its the judge criteria that stands. But I think we can never be 100% sure