Death penalty... weigh in

[NGMaximus]

I just thought I would get a "fun" discussion going and I'm curious how the BBS posting folks here at NG feel. Yea or Nea on the death penalty?

Personally I am against it, for two major political/sensible reasons:

1) It solves nothing. The only reason the perpetrator is put to death is for revenge. The only thing it is supposed to do is help those who were hurt by his/her actions... but it can't. It can not bring them back and it can not help them. It is an act of rage and makes us succumb to a murderer's level.

2) It is more expensive to execute than to imprison for life. Ironic, but true. The judicial system is set up so that so many appeals, trials, etc. may take place before someone is executed. On average, it actually costs a ridiculous amount more to hold someone on death row for a few years or months than to hold someone for the rest of their lives if they are not on route to be executed.

Anyways, have at. My opinion though: they are no longer a threat to society, so why go so far?

[mr-oranges]

At 12/26/01 10:43 PM, NGMaximus wrote: 1) It solves nothing. It is an act of rage and makes us succumb to a murderer's level.

right. the death penalty solves nothing. i've heard people say it is supposed to be a deterent, but this is BS. it can only be applied once the criminal is caught and people who commit crimes dont think they will be caught. if they did they wouldnt commit the crimes. a life sentance for murder is just as much a deterent as anything else. the same people who wont want to die for their crimes arent going to want to spend the rest of their lives getting gang-fucked for it. and for anyone who wants to throw the bible in on this and say "an eye for an eye," read the fucking new testament.

2) It is more expensive to execute than to imprison for life. Ironic, but true. The judicial system is set up so that so many appeals, trials, etc. may take place before someone is executed.

this could be ammended by doing away with all the appeals, but this increases the liklihood of an innocent person being exocuted, and i cant stand the thought of that. i dont remember which of our "founding fathers" it was who said that they'd rather have 100 guilty men walking free than a single innocent man charged with someone elses crime, but i agree completely.

[NGMaximus]

Just had to say that I agree with you... and that I don't think I have ever heard someone say "read the fucking new testament" before.

[bula-luigi]

I don't think it's teaching a very good lesson to the public either. Those people who lost loved ones to that Oklahoma bombing....they actually wanted to watch that guy die. that's just sick. And also it doesn't allow a person to rehabilitate, if that's possible.

But then again, that guy wanted to die, so I also think that anyone wanting to die should be given that choice.

[NGMaximus]

By "that guy" I am assuming you mean Timothy McVeigh, and you are right that it is sick that all of those people wanted to watch him die.

And you bring up an interesting point as well... the fact that McVeigh did almost want to be executed because it was a statement of how BS our judicial system is. We murder to punish a murderer... two wrongs make a right in our system.

I'm not at all agreeing with McVeigh's stance on most issues or what he did, but you have to appreciate his point made through his smiling gaze as he is murdered by our nation's justice system.

[chrcolbean]

Finally, someone who has that point of view! I've tried to defend myself by saying that for the last 3 friggin years, and I still have even Christians saying "well, and eye for an eye" (a priest even said that to me). Well, here's a few hints about why that's invalid:

1. It was written a while ago. Like about... 5000 years.
2. It was written to prevent unfairness, like someone getting executed because he stepped on a noble's toe.
3. If you say "an eye for an eye" then you surely would say that a wife beater deserves to be beat, a child molester deserves to be raped, a thief deserves to be stolen from, and a multitude of other things. Would you agree with just that, or would you rather have them go to prison for 10 years?

And also, if they say on television "don't fight hate with hate" why are we fighting murder with murder?

Furthermore, you can now be executed for doing things other then murder (drug dealing, smuggling, defecting, etc...) So where is the logic behind that?

[lapslf]

You're all right. and another argument against death penalty: The government punishes you for killing someone, by killing that person. Why should a government be allowed ot murder, and a citizen shouldn't?

[KaneOfNod]

The death penalty is a tough issue. I feel, however, that the death penalty should be discontinued...because it is far too leniant a punishment. Many of these killers are not afraid to die; in fact, some welcome it. Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Murrah Building (I think) in Oklahoma City, is a memorable example.

The other point is the possibility of an innocent person put onto death row. This has happened; I would give examples, but I can't be bothered to check my sources.

Therefore, I propose opening a facility in Alaska and imposing hard labor, with no cable TV. Only books, maybe radio. Now that can be a deterrant.

[bula-luigi]

I think it was at a protest against bombing Afghanistan but someone held up a banner saying "An eye for an eye makes everyone blind."

[ToonHole]

At 1/16/02 09:11 PM, KaneOfNod wrote: Therefore, I propose opening a facility in Alaska and imposing hard labor, with no cable TV. Only books, maybe radio. Now that can be a deterrant.

Why books or radio? I say just give them the bare minimum. Food, shelter, water, and each other's company (especially Bruno, the 300lbs. guy with a monster... rectum shreader).

[Behemonaut]

one of those old philosophers said something like..uhh...excersizing a right that is not given to the individual...since it's is (correctly?) unjust that a man cannot take his own life, it can only follow that the government he lives under cannot take his life either. I hope that makes sense. ahh, who cares..

[Pecos]

At 12/26/01 10:43 PM, NGMaximus wrote: Yea or Nea on the death penalty?

I say Yea. I think basically you need to ask this question, "Would the world be a better place without this person in it?" Some might say, "Well who are we to determine that? We're not god." But being a somewhat secular individual, this argument wouldn't hold water with me.

I'm not very politically correct, but I don't care.. that's my view and I'm stickin to it. :)