• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: andyturbo

Discussion: The Death Penalty & Capital Punishment

babydoc_vic, those botched excecutions are awful and made me very upset... some people would say these people deserved to die in pain... but i dont. I think having the death penalty is cruel and contradictary... many of the people that are being sent to death are dying for committing the crime of murder right... and then they are getting murdered themselves. In my opinion no one person has the right to decide whether another should die... sure they may have committed an awful crime but killing them for it wont solve anything i dont think, it will just continue the cruel vicous cycle...
However, i also think the punishment for many convicted criminals is not enough... some people get more years in jail for dealing ecstacy or other drugs than murdering/raping someone... now this is fucking wrong in my opinion. People that commit really awful crimes should be locked up and the govt. should throw the key away... i think a life of no freedom is worse than death... and a life of living with the awful things you have done and perhaps the guilt, and knowing others hate you. Killing these people is just setting them free.
I dunno, i just think it is wrong in most circumstances... but then again in some cases it may be appropriate... like that guy that did the Oklahama bombing or the guy who killed all those people in Tassy, now these people are obviously cruel and obviously guilty and perhaps should be put to death, but isn't that just the easy way out.
There are so many arguments for and against this, like concerning our tax money, etc. But ultimatley... despite the fact part of me thinks sometimes it would be the right way... reading those botched excecutions was awful, nobody deserves to die like that, no matter what crime they committed, as i said it will just all turn into a cirlce of evil.
So many other things i could say but this is already too long, i have so missed so many things out here...
 
sure they may have committed an awful crime but killing them for it wont solve anything i dont think, it will just continue the cruel vicous cycle...
well, not really. it will end that particular cycle. sure there will be another serial killer, and if he gets executed it will end his cycle too. and it will be a lesson to the rest of em.
at least if we cant kill them, send them to an isolated colony so we dont have to suport them.
that way they can just kill each other and it will also solve the problem ;)
Click to expand...
 
I'm going to be really contraversial and say, the purpose of the prison system doesn't NEED to be to punish the individual who is incarcerated. It simply needs to remove them from the rest of society.
So, then we don't need to kill anyone, because what right do we have to inflict on them the same thing that they inflict on others. As His Holiness the Dali Lama stated "An eye for an eye, and the whole world is blind".
So, then on to the fact that the vast majority of murders are one off offences. I believe that someone who is physically violent and serially assaults people deserves more prison time than someone who is a one off murderer like the majority are. Something like rape, which is almost ALWAYS a serial crime, deserves greater prison sentences, not, again, to punish, but simply to remove the offender from the rest of society. With new technology in this area we are capable of putting radio transmitting cuffs on criminals and allowing them out into society, this marks them as criminals, and also means that they are easily locatable, yet removes much of the cost of keeping them in prison, I believe this is probably suitable for many minor offences that clutter up our jails, such as drug possession etc.
Q: So with all this, why the fuck does the death penalty exist?
A: Because man is stupid, selfish, spiteful and short sighted.
-plaz out-
 
If you're all going to make such emphatic statements at least try to be informed of the subject matter you are commenting on. Use the sense of reason you are blessed with and you might not come off sounding like such idiots.
 
not much for me to add, but im on wazza and plaz' sides.
- prison isnt a hostel... if you are small, you will become someones bitch. if you are a rapist, they will rape and beat the fuck out of you. if you are a pedophile, you are in for a very rough time indeed. one thing to remember is that one thing paedophiles (and rapists) get off on is the absolute power they have over their victims. im sure it burns them up to be treated in the same way themselves.
- pleading insanity isnt 'getting off'... if you plead insanity, its way, way harder to get out of your mental institution than it is to get out of gaol. you cant just turn around in a months(or a year, or 10 or 20 years) time and say 'im better now'. im also skeptical that you can still use drugs or alcohol as an excuse for comitting a crime... pretty farken hard to prove in court anyhow.
- a teacher at my school went down for paedophilia (something like 50 or so charges), he killed himself before it went to trial. is this justice? im pretty sure if i was a victim (i wasnt, but i could have been... he taught me from yr 7-9) id rather see him rot in gaol... obviously he thought death was the easy way out.
 
Like most people I'm in two minds about the death penalty...
But honestly, does anyone think that Martin Bryant is innocent? He may not have been mentally stable, but he still destroyed the lives of many, many people. There is also no chance that he will be rehabilitated and released back into society.
He is being kept in gaol to protect the rest of society, not for his own punishment, and we are essentially having to pay for our own safety.
The death penalty would have basically the same result and then our money could be better spent in other areas.
And for the people who argue that we have no right to end someones life, what makes you think we have the right to limit their freedom?
Just because it's part of our legal system, part of our form of justice, we think that its an acceptable form of punishment.
Death is permanent and there can be no margin for error, however, I agree with Jakoz in that I think it should be available as an option on a very, very limited basis. I'm talking only of the very extreme cases where particular cruelty was shown.
I don't see factors such as botched executions as important. They have taken someones life, they're lucky to be dying in a relatively humane way with the chance to say goodbye to their loved ones. Perhaps I'm being cold hearted and very short sighted but I think they lose their right to my mercy when they decide to take the life of another person.
 
^^^^^^^^
*takes the bait*
Martin Bryant, everyone can try and explain away these people, they crop up now and again, they mightn't be a product of our society, but they're not 100% outside our control. These people aren't really responsible for their own actions, jesus they're like children let loose in the sweets section of woolworths with no supervision. They can't control themselves. Now when you have a child let loose in woolworths for the night, is the destruction and havoc unleashed blamed on the child? The blame is placed on the parent or guardian, because they are responsible for the actions of that child, and because that child needed supervision. Now society must act as the parents and guardians of these 'lost children' like Bryant, they need to be identified early and given treatment. Ok you can't catch them every time, but then nothing is infalliable. To be brutally blunt, sometimes you lose out, and then nobody really is to blame. The 'Bryants' of this world need to be institutionalised, and if possible, cured, and when they are cured is there any reason why they shouldn't be released back into society?
Orwellian principles must apply here. The death penalty has no point, killing a criminal isn't a victory. It is a FAILURE. A victory is when a criminal becomes a non-criminal and a good citizen. When they learn to love society.
Prison is simply a means of removing them from our view and from us, a vast and ghastly inefficient system which consumes huge amounts of money. Rehabilition, by whatever means, is always the best option, but to rehabilitate, you must accept that you cannot JUST PUNISH. You also need to teach that indivual to respect and to love society.
However, compare the options of the death penalty, and prison. Prison is far more humane. Furthermore if you actually BARRACK for someone's execution, you are a fucking gallows whore. Prison is far more remedyable than death in the event of a mistake. Just use a little of that famed 'empathy' and put yourself in the shoes of a condemned innocent man on death row.
Believe me, I've had a close friend who was raped. Its a horrible thing, but all the punishment in the world doesn't change the fact that it happened.
Fuck the death penalty, what makes you think taking another life will bring the person you loved back? And 'sorry' doesn't mean a fuckload when ANOTHER innocent dies on frying on the electric chair, or twitching and pissing themselves when they hang.
-plaz out-
 
I support the death penalty not as a means of revenge, not as pay-back, not as justice served. I support it solely for practical purposes. Funds put into housing criminals who will never be released is dead money. Surely there is better things, more productive ways to use this money...
Martin Bryant may be partly a product of society, but it is a little too late now to be trying to make up for the wrongs we have done him. From what I have read he doesn't even understand the full consequences of his actions and without this basic understanding there is no way he will be released back into society.
The money saved by executing him and others like him could perhaps be put back into the community to support mental health programmes...help other people before they too do something terrible.
I'm arguing purely from an objective and economic point of view. Perhaps this is callous, perhaps somewhat immoral, but they're the emotionless facts.
 
A question to all who support the death penalty for financial reasons (if you think it is cheaper, which it isn't) : How much is one human life worth to you, in australian dollars?
-plaz out-
 
Originally posted by plazma:
A question to all who support the death penalty for financial reasons (if you think it is cheaper, which it isn't) : How much is one human life worth to you, in australian dollars?
-plaz out-
Less then the one of the innocent person/people they killed. The price of life is not an issue to me. What price do you put on taking someone's freedom for the rest of their life?
And you think imprisoning someone for 10, 20, 50 years is cheaper then executing them immediatly? If thats true, I'd like to see those figures.
Oh and Plaz, was wondering when someone would bring up that cliche. ;)
[ 18 May 2002: Message edited by: up all night ]
Click to expand...
 
^^^^^^
In all fairness its the only cliche to reply with. The pro-death penalty people are always the first to trot out the 'cold blooded economics' as you so politely put it.
So can anyone tell me exactly where a prison sentence should become a death sentence due to 'economics'? Somewhere between 20 years and life? Life imprisonment only?
Secondly, you can almost never be 100% sure that the person you are imprisoning OR executing as you would have it, is the one who committed the crime. And the number of people as babydoc_vic said, who have been found to be innocent who are on death row in the USA is quite terrifying, and you can believe that our system would be very similar to theirs in the event that we re-instituted the death sentence.
Thirdly: You wanted the research that proves that it is cheaper? It is, to my knowledge, based on american figures, though given that if we re-instituted the death sentence it would probably be under the american system it would be reasonable to assume that it is comparable. I don't know the name of the research, but it was news at about the time of Timothy Mcveigh's execution, so I'll look around and see if I can come up with it.
In the meantime.
Remember: Empathy: Would you like to be that tiny percentage who gets mistaken and executed? Statistics don't mean sweet fuckall if you're the one in for the high jump.
-plaz out-
 
In my opinion, the death penalty should only be used in the most extreme cases. Only for those charged with life imprisonment, never to be released. If the person ever stands a chance of parole then they should not be executed under any circumstances. This may only happen once every five, ten years or so but as I said in an earlier post, death has no margin for error. It should not apply to all murderers, but only to the cases where extreme cruelty and lack of remorse was shown.
I do agree that it is exceedingly difficult to prove guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt, but there are some cases which are cut and dried, such as the Martin Bryant case (which is why I brought it up). His guilt can not be questioned. My point is, why are we keeping him alive? The only answer can be to satisfy our personal sense of moral righteousness.
It's as my economics teacher would argue, the true cost of keeping someone imprisoned for X amount of years is not only the direct costs involved, but also the cost of activites foregone eg mental health programmes. You save someone's life by not executing them but who's to say you don't risk the life of another person because their mentally disturbed killer didn't have access to resources which may have cured them.
I can understand why people would want to protect the sanctity of life and the truth is we're never going to agree. We're fighting for different reasons and your arguments aren't going to persuade me just as mine won't change your mind.
 
In writing this reply i havent read any of the comments posted yet because i want my reply unswayed.
In my humble opinion, i would like the death penalty to be abolished everywhere. I think it is a horrible thing and i dont give a shit if its costing the government money to keep the prisoners alive or whatnot, its wrong. I dont want to go into the reasons here because its something i really feel strongly about, sure, someone can make a mistake (be it a big one), but i dont believe its right to go and do the same thing back to them for a "revenge" of some sort. Keep them in jail for their lifetime, they can die like that, but i think its wrong to kill them off.
Ill write more later when i wanna ramble more.
My 2 cents...
 
Originally posted by plazma:
[QBOrwellian principles must apply here. The death penalty has no point, killing a criminal isn't a victory. It is a FAILURE. A victory is when a criminal becomes a non-criminal and a good citizen. When they learn to love society.[/QB]
Been reading, not knowing how to respond, then this jumped out of the page at me. There are very few people who have no chance of rehabilitation. If there is a chance at all, then it must be taken.
Off topic, in China the death penalty is much cheaper than life in prison, the reason being is the process goes: you're caught, found guilty, shot and the price of the bullet sent to your family.
Click to expand...
 
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. for even the very wise cannot see all ends."
(nice one Gandalf)
 
Originally posted by Jakoz:
IIf guilt can be proved, totally and absolutely beyond doubt, there are some crimes that, in my book, deserve it.

Hrmph, anyone know how to prove totally and absolutely beyond doubt?
And how do you decide which crimes are "worthy" of this death sentence? I mean, I may think being raped is "worthy", where someone may disagree... who would make this decision for humanity?
[Mr. SiLvAmOoNcHiLd]
a) "Totally prove"? Who here lives in an ideal world and society?
b) What does the word rehabilitation mean again?
c) To quote a cliche, "give an inch and they take a mile". Once a precedent is set, it won't always stay. As Mrs SiLvA said, who is to say what is worthy. Even when worthy is defined, it won't stay that way forever.
d) Is living with a crime worse than dying? Or a life in prison anyway...
[ 20 May 2002: Message edited by: SiLvAmOoNcHiLd ]
Click to expand...
 
Every day the courts make decision as to the severity of a crime, judging whether a crime is worth 6 months in gaol or life imprisonment. The death penalty is that step further. While it is a large step, I don't think it would be impossible to decide which cases could result in a ruling of execution.
 
"Young Sydney Sider, given death penalty for possesion of ecstasy found by the new sniffer dog drug squad on public transport in the sydney CBD last week".....um yeah sounds right hey!
fuck the death penalty off and the sniffer dogs as well!!
 
In a sick and sad way, every life has a dollar value. Say, through ones own blatent negligence someone gets incredibly sick. As a result would require, say 50 years of intensive and expensive treatment just to be able to have limited functionality again.
Ethically that person has a right to treatment, but in reality he will get nothing. In a way I agree with the death penaly in the absolute extreme cases. There is no question in anyone's mind that Bryant was guilty, but being able to make sure that every death penalty decision is demonstrating at least equal or more justice is just about impossible. In addition, Introducing it only allows governments to gradually make the rules less stringent.
So basically I don't support the introduction of the death penalty, even if I think it is applicable extreme circumstances.
 
An eye of an eye is not how a modern society should work.
The state would be just as bad as the criminal.
Killing someone isnt going to solve the problem as to why they did it, it only plays on revengfull fears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top