00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

Proximothegr81 just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

Law and Order

2,544 Views | 32 Replies

Law and Order 2007-06-28 08:38:25


Death Penalty
Are you for or against it? And don't give me something like...

Well if someone I knew was murdered I would want the death penalty to be used on them, but anyone else no

There is no second guessing, No leaning this way or that, you're either for it or against it.

I believe in the words of Ron White...

"If you kill someone in Texas we will kill you back!"

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 09:08:54


I believe in the words of Gandhi

' An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 09:14:38


At 6/28/07 09:08 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: I believe in the words of Gandhi

' An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'

That about sums it up.


VOTE KUCINICH! Break the stranglehold of the corporate elite over this country!

Hint: click the sig for my MySpace. Fuck anonymity.

BBS Signature

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 09:42:18


I am against the death penalty because I belive that leaving the criminals to rot in a cell for the rest of their worthless lives is a better punishment than just killing them...
There is also a way to undo mistakes if the person turns out to be innocent...
If you kill an innocent man, there is no undoing it...


Last.fm

Why the fuck did I like these forums again

CLICK SIGNATURE FOR DIFFERENT SONGS EACH WEEK

BBS Signature

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 16:36:46


It's also cheaper to keep them locked up for life than it is to kill them. And if they're around similar folk, chances are good they'll do the job for us, free of charge.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 19:14:01


I say no to the death penalty, but for a different reason than many. Its not undo-able. You lock up an innocent person for life, if they are found through new evidence or whatever to be innocent you can let them out, its fixable, to an extent. You execute someone, there is no going back, no fixing it. What are you going to do, say opps, my bad?

Is one innocent persons life worth that of 100 guilty?


Bellum omnium contra omnes

BBS Signature

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 19:48:11


At 6/28/07 09:42 AM, EvilerBowser1001 wrote: I am against the death penalty because I belive that leaving the criminals to rot in a cell for the rest of their worthless lives is a better punishment than just killing them...
There is also a way to undo mistakes if the person turns out to be innocent...
If you kill an innocent man, there is no undoing it...

There is also no undoing of 10 years of rape and beatings for example. They should make the death penalty an option for the convicted, for example if the person commited double homocide and get sentenced to life in prison or have the choice to be executed. Makes sense to me.

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 20:13:59


At 6/28/07 04:36 PM, Ravariel wrote: It's also cheaper to keep them locked up for life than it is to kill them. And if they're around similar folk, chances are good they'll do the job for us, free of charge.

I'm afraid to say that your incorrect in your statement; it takes quite a bit of government money to maintain prisons, the maintinence of the buildings as well as the care of the prisoners costs more money then purchasing a vial of lethal injection fluid. [in the long run]

Ravariel please read this post, consider the things required to keep a prison running, including the basics of a house [electricity and running water] as well as food, minor recreational costs, security equiptment costs, and employment.

Prisoners are certainly not given the life of luxury [with the exception of incarserated celebrities] but they still cost money.
_____________________________________________
_____________________________

The death penalty shouldn't be thrown out at every common criminal, [though doing so would, as i asume, probably save tax payers alot of money which would otherwise go into prison maintinence] But needs to be reserved for the most extenuating circumstances.

Consider this ladies and gentlemen, once your given life in prison; What insentive do you have to follow anyone's orders? what kind of punishment could the government issue further? Extra life in prison? that's physically impossible. Face it, a man [and it's usually a man] who's in jail for his life can do WHATEVER he wants, including killing inmates, [some of which might be innocent as some of the anti-deathpentalty speakers have mentioned] as well as prison gaurds and staff.

And what can the gaurds do about it? shoot them? What's the difference between that and the death penalty, and shooting the gaurd.

or maybe they could torcher the prisoners for bad behaviour, or give them worse conditions...

Except torcher is wrong, no matter how minor it may be, no matter the circumstances.

This concept of 'lets be nice' has it's setbacks, and it's conflictions.


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 20:50:27


Frankly, an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind. And in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Which doesn't matter because everyone is blind.

So, untill we can find something more resonable, like indentured servitude or something, It's what we have to do. Crime and punishment. But better ways exist and should be sought.

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 20:53:13


At 6/28/07 07:14 PM, JoS wrote:
Is one innocent persons life worth that of 100 guilty?

I prefer one innocent be locked up than 100 guilty go free.

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 20:59:34


At 6/28/07 04:36 PM, Ravariel wrote: It's also cheaper to keep them locked up for life than it is to kill them.

How does that work exactly? Would carrying out the sentance quicker ease that? Oh, and i'm for.


"Communism is the very definition of failure." - Liberty Prime.

BBS Signature

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 21:15:13


At 6/28/07 08:59 PM, animehater wrote:
At 6/28/07 04:36 PM, Ravariel wrote: It's also cheaper to keep them locked up for life than it is to kill them.
How does that work exactly? Would carrying out the sentance quicker ease that? Oh, and i'm for.

if he responds to you and not me, i'm going to kill him.

[and maybe you too]

no, i'm not serious; i'm not a maniac.

But if he did i'd be severly pissed.


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 21:47:57


At 6/28/07 08:59 PM, animehater wrote:
At 6/28/07 04:36 PM, Ravariel wrote: It's also cheaper to keep them locked up for life than it is to kill them.
How does that work exactly? Would carrying out the sentance quicker ease that? Oh, and i'm for.

Appeals process; I read most of them die in prison waiting for the sentence to be filled out. Like it's been said, what do you do if you realize an executed man was innocent?

I don't think I'd want to spend years and years in a supermax prison though, perhaps execution might be more merciful in that case. I think people should be given a choice, though. It is our lives after all; and if the government can keep you from escaping there's no reason you shouldn't be allowed to live it there if you want to, right?

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 21:50:58


I dont quite understand why the execution process takes so long, if a person is sentenced to death, he should be given 1 no less then 1 week to spend in jail, say his goodbyes to his family [asuming he didn't kill them all] while the 'dirrectors' do a quick background check on the evidence used to proove him guilty durring the trial... and then do the execution.

I can hardly beleive that the ammount of executions is so numberous that they'res a 25+ year line to be executed.


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 22:58:51


At 6/28/07 07:48 PM, TheBasics wrote:
There is also no undoing of 10 years of rape and beatings for example. They should make the death penalty an option for the convicted, for example if the person commited double homocide and get sentenced to life in prison or have the choice to be executed. Makes sense to me.

Sorry, but I thought that the point of prison was to DENY freedom to the criminals, not to allow them to decide their own fate...Why the fuck would you want to do that?
Rape and beatings can be recovered from by something called THERAPY...Last I checked, death has no therapy or cure, other than spiritual beliefs of what will happen after death...


Last.fm

Why the fuck did I like these forums again

CLICK SIGNATURE FOR DIFFERENT SONGS EACH WEEK

BBS Signature

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 23:03:10


At 6/28/07 10:58 PM, EvilerBowser1001 wrote:
At 6/28/07 07:48 PM, TheBasics wrote:
There is also no undoing of 10 years of rape and beatings for example. They should make the death penalty an option for the convicted, for example if the person commited double homocide and get sentenced to life in prison or have the choice to be executed. Makes sense to me.
Sorry, but I thought that the point of prison was to DENY freedom to the criminals, not to allow them to decide their own fate...Why the fuck would you want to do that?
Rape and beatings can be recovered from by something called THERAPY...Last I checked, death has no therapy or cure, other than spiritual beliefs of what will happen after death...

I don't think any amount of therapy is going to cure the traumatic experiences of prison, any way you cut it you can't make a person feel better about years upon years of getting raped/living in a hostile environment its enough to drive people crazy.
BTW Death>Life in prison

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 23:21:43


At 6/28/07 11:03 PM, TheBasics wrote:
I don't think any amount of therapy is going to cure the traumatic experiences of prison, any way you cut it you can't make a person feel better about years upon years of getting raped/living in a hostile environment its enough to drive people crazy.
BTW Death>Life in prison

I think that the family of the innocent prisoner would be just plain pissed at the explanation of 'your son/husband/whatever is dead because we fucked up' If I was a relative of an innocent man man executed, then I would be pissed, to say the least...Also, why would you want the better punishment for the guilty ones? The innocent ones are punished the same way the guilty ones are.


Last.fm

Why the fuck did I like these forums again

CLICK SIGNATURE FOR DIFFERENT SONGS EACH WEEK

BBS Signature

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 23:23:25


At 6/28/07 08:13 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: I'm afraid to say that your incorrect in your statement; it takes quite a bit of government money to maintain prisons, the maintinence of the buildings as well as the care of the prisoners costs more money then purchasing a vial of lethal injection fluid. [in the long run]

Like Tacos said, it has to do with the Appeals Process. With the almost unlimited number of appeals allowed death row inmates, almost all of which are paid for (by necessity, inmates aren't normally very wealthy) the State (read: us). Also, all the expenses a normal prisoner is responsible for, a death row inmate is also racking up while he waits to die, so considering the added cost of the trials the winner is execution by a rather large margin.

And what can the gaurds do about it? shoot them? What's the difference between that and the death penalty, and shooting the gaurd.

Solitary and retaliation from GenPop is usually quite enough to keep most inmates behaving well. And even if it isn't, solitary keeps the one's it doesn't work for away from everyone else so they can't be trouble.

Our prison system has it's flaws, but it gets the big stuff right.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 23:25:57


At 6/28/07 09:15 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
if he responds to you and not me, i'm going to kill him.

I was, for the record, DAMN tempted to answer all of your questions but only quote animehater, just to fuck with you. I'll let you know it was an act of epic self control that I resisted that urge.

:P


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-28 23:35:21


At 6/28/07 11:21 PM, EvilerBowser1001 wrote:
At 6/28/07 11:03 PM, TheBasics wrote:
I don't think any amount of therapy is going to cure the traumatic experiences of prison, any way you cut it you can't make a person feel better about years upon years of getting raped/living in a hostile environment its enough to drive people crazy.
BTW Death>Life in prison
I think that the family of the innocent prisoner would be just plain pissed at the explanation of 'your son/husband/whatever is dead because we fucked up' If I was a relative of an innocent man man executed, then I would be pissed, to say the least...Also, why would you want the better punishment for the guilty ones? The innocent ones are punished the same way the guilty ones are.

No your not getting me, I said they should have the ability to
choose whether they want to be executed or get life in prison, logically thinking an innocent person won't choose the death penalty but stay alive to appeal about his innocence to the court. A criminal who is rightfully accused would most likely choose death (unless they are pussy) and thats a good think, we don't waste money keeping them alive in prison and the world has one criminal less. Good logical thinking amarite?

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-29 15:19:51


At 6/28/07 11:35 PM, TheBasics wrote: A criminal who is rightfully accused would most likely choose death (unless they are pussy) and thats a good think, we don't waste money keeping them alive in prison and the world has one criminal less. Good logical thinking amarite?

nournotrite. If you actually think anyone will choose execution over life imprisonment, there's something wrong with your reality valve.


Tis better to sit in silence and be presumed a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-29 16:36:53


At 6/29/07 03:19 PM, Ravariel wrote:
At 6/28/07 11:35 PM, TheBasics wrote: A criminal who is rightfully accused would most likely choose death (unless they are pussy) and thats a good think, we don't waste money keeping them alive in prison and the world has one criminal less. Good logical thinking amarite?
nournotrite. If you actually think anyone will choose execution over life imprisonment, there's something wrong with your reality valve.

My "reality valve?" listen I don't know if your into sex with big hairy dudes in jail for the rest of your life, hey I am not judging you everyone has different taste.

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-29 16:56:49


Response to Law and Order 2007-06-29 17:04:53


I am completely in favor of the Death Penalty, but only when used under proper circumstances.

I believe much opposition to the Death Penalty results from two assumptions about the purpose of the Penal System. The first assumption is that criminals should be punished, regardless of rehabilitation. The second assumption is that imprisoning someone will prevent them from commiting further crimes. Both assumptions are false.

The first one justifies the anti-DP stance in which someone argues that a life-sentence is a "better punishment" of criminals because they "suffer" in prison for many years. However, punishment is irrelevant when the sole purpose is to exact revenge. Punishment is supposed to alter and improve behavior, not satisfy your hatred of a criminal. When considering this issue, we should put aside our petty desires and instead judge based on the ethics of the Death Penalty and the actual impact our treatment of criminals will have on Society.

This is where the second assumption comes into play. Most people treat the Death Penalty and a Life Sentence as if they have identical effets. However, that is not at all true. Criminals who are put in prison for life, by necessity, adapt to their new environment; metal bars and guards are not enough to stop a psychopath or rapist from acting out his desires furhter. When criminals are in prison, they can still commit crimes and perpetuate their own criminal attitudes and those of other individuals by collaborating and feeding off the criminality of one another.

Or in other words, puting someone who we believe can not be rehabilitated in prison will hurt those who still can be rehabilitated. The entire purpose of prison is to "save" criminals from their current behavior and teach them a lesson; allowing life-sentence prisoners to interact with anyone else and allowing the mixture of "hard" criminals with others only promotes the exact behavior prison is meant to eliminate. Murders, theft, rape, fraud, and violence all happen in prison still; our goal should be to prevent as much of that as reasonably possible.

Putting osmeone in prison for life may "remove" them, but it harms the rehabilitation of those who are in prison temporarily and does not prevent further criminal acts by the imprisoned. In some situations, the Death Penalty is necessary as the only solution to truly stop criminals who are so far beyond rehabilitation that they pose an extreme danger both physically and behaviorally to all those around them.

For example, we have this criminal named TERRY. He was put in prison for the murder of nine people in three families that lived along the same street. After he was in prison for a year, he attacked and severely injured a guard with his fists. He was punished further, but three months later he strangles his cellmate to death. After five years he has assaulted over a dozen guards and inmates and killed three other people in the prison. What should be done with him? Ethical restrictions placed on the Prison prevent permanent solitary confinement or other measures to keep him away from others.

In some situations, the Death Penalty becomes the only reasonable option, when an individual is so dangerous that the best course of action is simply a complete removal of the individual and any influence he or she may have on anyone. It is not a matter of "punishment" or "revenge," it is a situation of cold, hard reasoning about the damage an individual will cause if allowed to live.

I do believe ethical constraints on the Death Penalty should be strong. Very rarely should someone be punished with it, and even more rarely for behavior only performed before imprisonment. A man who simply stabs another person to death does not warrant the Death Penalty; a serial killer who has brutally tortured and raped a dozen individuals before murdering them and mutilating the corpses does deserve consideration of the Death Penalty (much like the BTK killer); an individual who committed a series of crimes including murder outside of prison and then stubbornly continues attempts to attack and murder multiple other people in prison also should be considered for the Death Penalty.

Above all, let this point get across: the Death Penalty should be allowed, but should also be reserved for truly extreme cases of criminality where effectiely no doubt at all exists about the impossibility of rehabilitating the individual.

Further, I believe any "ethical" rejections of the Death Penalty should be reconsidered in the light of Real Life: war kills, soldiers kill, criminals kill, and millions die every year at the hands of other individuals. If any person is justified in shooting another to protect himself or his nation, then that Nation should be justified in killing an individual who poses a grave, imminent threat to the citizenry of that Nation. It is not "different"; the killing that goes on regularly is the same as that proposed by the Death Penalty.

For any individual who believes the Death Penalty should be banned based on the ethics of killing a person, I charge you to hold to your belief in all situations and be a complete Pacifist, even at the stake of your own life, and actively against any and every form of killing. If you do hold true and reject violence, war, the martial arts and other combat styles, self-defense, euthanasia, abortion, medical life-support termination, and lay blame in accidental killings, then I respect your right to hold that position. However, if you believe any form of killing is in any way justifiable under any circumstnaces, your rejection of the Death Penalty is pure fluff.

Those are my beliefs about the entire situation, but for those readers who are too lazy to actually read a full argument, I will summarize it:

I support the existance and use of the Death Penalty in extreme conditions which warrant it, but not otherwise.

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-29 17:20:10


At 6/28/07 08:38 AM, The-Great-One wrote: "If you kill someone in Texas we will kill you back!"

He also went on to say, that in Texas, they had just instituted a new law that states that if 3 people saw you commit the crime and will testify to that, you're ass goes to the front of the line on death row.

"While other states are trying to abolish the death penalty, my state is putting in an express lane."

At 6/28/07 04:36 PM, Ravariel wrote: And if they're around similar folk, chances are good they'll do the job for us, free of charge.

And people think conservatives are black hearted for wanting to just out and out kill someone who's been found guilty of their crime?


BBS Signature

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-29 17:24:54


At 6/28/07 09:14 AM, SlithVampir wrote:
At 6/28/07 09:08 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: I believe in the words of Gandhi

' An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'
That about sums it up.

Seconded.


BBS Signature

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-29 17:43:39


At 6/29/07 05:04 PM, Draconias wrote: Fantastic explanation of the ethics of the Death Penalty and it's application in the American justice system.

Draconias, that was excellent and I agree with your statement and the belief that the death penalty should be used sparingly and only for the most heinous crimes.

That being said, you made an astute point on the imprisonment of criminals. All too often, we have a mix of dangerous criminals and not-so-dangerous criminals in the same relative area. To counter this, the justice system established prisons of differing security levels: minimum, medium, high, maximum, and even super-max (where they put major criminals and supervillains). However, with the increasing overcrowding of prisons, the system is slowly being forced to move criminals to places they don't belong. A man convicted of possession may find himself in a high-security facility simply because it has the space. As a result, these non-dangerous prisoners are forced either to become tougher and more ruthless, or live in danger.

Dangerous criminals need to be separated from the non-dangerous, no matter the circumstances. If a criminal serving life becomes too much of a threat to the safety and security of others in prison, he should be tried and further convicted if found guilty. The law must apply in prison. If a criminal begins to show that he can reform and become less violent, then he should be considered for transfer to a lower-level security facility.

Those who can be rehabilitated should be given every opportunity to do so, and when they are released, they should be able to find work that can earn them a living. It is very, very difficult for any former prisoner to get work of any kind, no matter what offense they committed. The result is a cycle of crime.

Those who cannot be rehabilitated must remain in prison, or in the extreme cases, executed.

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-29 19:29:04


It's a tough one, but... in the extreme. I'm for it. Someone once told me that my view was like 'Native American Justice Circles'... can't find any info on that.. but whatever.

Here's my view. Serious crimes, like murder and multiple rapings, get people over the age of say.... 20 (Under that and your life is screwed by that deed, so a lighter sentence) get two options.

A. Five years manual labor in some place, humane, a few days off, weekends off, if you're sick, you get to rest till you get better, but you HAVE to work, it's not overly strenous, but not chuck meat either. Conditions are also decent.

B. You may elect to have yourself killed... or maybe we can just set up a large prison remnescient of NYC in John Carpenters Escape From New York.. but with a chance of getting out in 10 years via some closely guarded gate into the city.

Now.. if you fail in option A. you get sent to B. Where you can't cause trouble.
Those who'd do no good in work, and would probably be at risk for seriously fucking things up in the prison city.... A.K.A. turning it into a major hellhole filled with people breaking out, might get executed... but only in incredibly extreme cases. Think 'a criminal and social mastermind' times 2000.

Thus this would eliminate the need for death penalties, jail cells, although repeat offenders for moreso minor crimes (theft etc.) would end up having to choose. And overall. I think this is a good solution.


My name is John Ching, I have run this account since 2006. Thank you for the opportunity.

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-29 19:59:53


The death penalty is absolutely absurd in my mind. Like said before in this thread, what if there was a mistake made? What if this person is innocent and the killer is still out there? There would be no one to give a real testimony as what happened.

And as to the argument of the death penalty being cheaper then keeping criminals in jail, how about we stop handing out ten year sentences to people in possession of drugs? They don't need to be in jail, they need a slap on the wrist and a trip to rehab.

Being in jail for your whole life is a hell of a lot worse and more agonizing then being sentenced to die, any way you look at it.


[quote]

whoa art what

BBS Signature

Response to Law and Order 2007-06-29 20:20:41


At 6/28/07 11:25 PM, Ravariel wrote:
At 6/28/07 09:15 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
if he responds to you and not me, i'm going to kill him.
I was, for the record, DAMN tempted to answer all of your questions but only quote animehater, just to fuck with you. I'll let you know it was an act of epic self control that I resisted that urge.

P

Thankyou for replying.

Judging by what you read it apears as if the legal process is much to fair for it's own good, that it does what it wastes money just for the sake of fuffilling a sense of doing something that's morally right;; though not nessesarilly good for society.

As for therapy; i'm skeptical that it can work, and once you have commmited a terrible crime, your life is ruined forever; no one will hire you. [infact, the government might actually have to start forcing buisnesses to hire criminals, which by most people today is probably obsurd, but it wont be by the time we have gone a few years into the future; as i notice that liberalism is a pushing force, it asserts more and more as time passes.

but you have a point.


On a moving train there are no centrists, only radicals and reactionaries.