Thoughts and Opinions - Death Penalty.

Print Page | Close Window

Death Penalty.

Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=160798
Printed Date: 13 May 2026 at 11:41am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Death Penalty.

Posted By: Kristofer
Subject: Death Penalty.
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 7:43pm

I am doing a paper on being for it because I am for it. So what are your supportive arguements and reasons for no death penalty? The more opinions the merrier. Or however you spell that word. Just curious on the different views. I am about done with it now but I thought it would be something different for the forum.

Replies:

Posted By: Squishey
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 7:46pm

do your own homework

-------------
Canadians do it on top.

Posted By: pntbl freak
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 7:48pm

I am against it.

-------------

Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 7:50pm

Squishey wrote:

do your own homework

If you read it. I am about done with it.

Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 7:51pm

i would pull the switch if they let me.

Posted By: Squishey
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 7:52pm

Kristofer wrote:

Squishey wrote:

do your own homework

If you read it. I am about done with it.

i did read it, and i still say do your own homework.

-------------
Canadians do it on top.

Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 7:53pm

Squishey wrote:

Kristofer wrote:

Squishey wrote:

do your own homework

If you read it. I am about done with it.

i did read it, and i still say do your own homework.

Then you clearly dont understand the words about done. I did not ask for help. Because I am about done with it. As in finishing touches of the paper. Nothing more to add. More like reviewing it for grammatical trash.

Posted By: Jack Carver
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 7:58pm

I think with our government and legal system, the death penalty is no longer effective because it's not swift, it's not harsh, and it's not publicly visible/talked about a lot. Plus from what I've heard it's more expensive to kill somebody than to keep them in jail for life because of the entire legal mess.
I say make it end.

Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 7:59pm

Jack Carver wrote:

I think with our government and legal system, the death penalty is no longer effective because it's not swift, it's not harsh, and it's not publicly visible/talked about a lot. Plus from what I've heard it's more expensive to kill somebody than to keep them in jail for life because of the entire legal mess.
I say make it end.

its only more expensive bc of all the legal crap and people trying to appeal. techinically, itd cost a lot of money to house them, but if our government grew a pair, a box of 50 .22 long rounds only costs about 3 bucks.

edit-they let people appeal too much, or w/e the term is. if someones convicted of a crime and given the death penalty they should do it then and there in the court room. i personally think it would serve as an example to future criminals.

Posted By: STOcocker
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:04pm

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty. I don't really have a problem with it, but I also don't feel that it is the worst way to kill someone. If it were me, life in jail with no parole would be a lot worse then being put to death.

Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:10pm

Cons:

1. Never proven as a deterrent to crime.
2. People have been released from the "Death Row" as innocent.
3. People could still be on death row that are innocent.
4. Killing should not be revenged by more killing.
5. Brutalizes society.
6. Only civilized western country with death penalty.
7. Courts are discriminatory against minorities when condemning to death.
8. Killing someone should be considered to be cruel and unusual. We have rules against that.
9. Much more expensive than life in prison.
10. No chance of rehabilitation.

Pros:

???

-------------

Posted By: a5Tpp789
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:10pm

pntbl freak wrote:

I am against it.

-------------

if you put 500 dollars into an A5 it is still an A5

Posted By: oreomann33
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:16pm

Tae Kwon Do wrote:

Cons:

1. Never proven as a deterrent to crime.
2. People have been released from the "Death Row" as innocent.
3. People could still be on death row that are innocent.
4. Killing should not be revenged by more killing.
5. Brutalizes society.
6. Only civilized western country with death penalty.
7. Courts are discriminatory against minorities when condemning to death.
8. Killing someone should be considered to be cruel and unusual. We have rules against that.
9. Much more expensive than life in prison.
10. No chance of rehabilitation.

Pros:

???

Pwned.

Death penalty sucks.

-------------

Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:17pm

Winner.

-------------

Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:21pm

For a Pro you could say removes the risk of a prisoner escaping from jail because they are dead

Posted By: ¤ Råp¡Ð F¡rè ¤
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:24pm

Kristofer wrote:

For a Pro you could say removes the risk of a prisoner escaping from jail because they are dead

That, and I don't know how much it costs to kill someone... (shouldn't cost that much), but I don't feel like paying for some criminal's meals in prison.

-------------

Posted By: battlefreak
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:26pm

im for it except for homocides where it was in self defence or say a father killed someone who killed or raped his daughter or somthing like that.

-------------

Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:26pm

¤ Råp¡Ð F¡rè ¤ wrote:

Kristofer wrote:

For a Pro you could say removes the risk of a prisoner escaping from jail because they are dead

That, and I don't know how much it costs to kill someone... (shouldn't cost that much), but I don't feel like paying for some criminal's meals in prison.

Killing someone costs so much money. You have no idea. And that whole criminal meals in prison deal is total crap. More money is spent each year on death penalty than on keeping prisoners fed.

-------------

Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:26pm

battlefreak wrote:

im for it except for homocides where it was in self defence or say a father killed someone who killed or raped his daughter or somthing like that.

damn straight. i think rapists deserve it. especially repeat offenders.

Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:30pm

¤ Råp¡Ð F¡rè ¤ wrote:

Kristofer wrote:

For a Pro you could say removes the risk of a prisoner escaping from jail because they are dead

That, and I don't know how much it costs to kill someone... (shouldn't cost that much), but I don't feel like paying for some criminal's meals in prison.

Common Fallacy Numero Uno.

Costs much less to house a prisoner than to execute them.

battlefreak wrote:

im for it except for homocides where it was in self defence or say a father killed someone who killed or raped his daughter or somthing like that.

Self defense is one thing.

The other thing you mention is called Vigilantism. It is very very very detrimental to society. I cannot stress how bad it effects everything. We have a criminal justice system for a reason. Let it do it's job.

-------------

Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:35pm

Tae Kwon Do wrote:

Cons:

4. Killing should not be revenged by more killing.
5. Brutalizes society.
8. Killing someone should be considered to be cruel and unusual. We have rules against that.

Yay speculated opinion. And it is hardly unusual, cruel as it may be.

I would be all for it if the process was much quicker, and it were possible to prove with no doubt to an unbiased jury, but I'd sooner be allowed to spit in Dubya's eyes that those two things ever occur.

-------------

Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:36pm

I think a lot of you speak from a point of view, when you have had no experience in the field. If it was your family member who was murdered, you would want justice.

-------------

Posted By: oreomann33
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:37pm

Skillet42565 wrote:

I think a lot of you speak from a point of view, when you have had no experience in the field. If it was your family member who was murdered, you would want revenge.

Fixed.

-------------

Posted By: battlefreak
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:39pm

justice

-------------

Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:40pm

Gatyr wrote:

I would be all for it if the process was much quicker, and it were possible to prove with no doubt to an unbiased jury,

And I am the only one with the speculation?

Capital punishment works in a happy utopia land where everyone is absolutely proven guilty with no doubt at all, and we can magically wave a wand to kill someone.

Quicker is not better in this situation. Adds more problems with possible innocence, and assurance of a fair trial.

And yes, those points were opinion, but they are opinions many people share. I tend to think killing someone is a cruel thing to do, which is why we should punish someone who did it with being in jail. Killing back does not help the situation.

-------------

Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:42pm

Skillet42565 wrote:

If it was your family member who was murdered, you would want justice.

The crutch of all Pro-Death arguments.

I would want justice. I would want it in the form of a life sentence in a federal prison.

I am not wishy-washy on my beliefs. If someone killed my family, I would want them punished. Life in prison is a justification.

When did it become "If you don't want to kill someone you might as well let them go?"

-------------

Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:45pm

Life in prison is a joke these days. Aside from the general problems, you get all kinds of other stuff that shouldn't be in prisons. Its like a resort for sex offenders and killers.

-------------

Posted By: Yomillio
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:45pm

I believe it should be "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". If you kill someone, and it is 100% proven that you in fact did commit the said crime, then and only then should you be put to death. I think we should have a more money-efficent way of inflicting the death-penalty on someone, however. The ways most killers murder is, lets face it, just plain brutal. Why do they get a quick, fairly painless death? And why should they be allowed to live? I think if we overcome the "leathal-injection" and move into more fitting and cost efficent death penalties, death for murder would be much more practical. Yes, i know that right now it makes more financial sense to lock someone up for the rest of their life, but it just isnt a harsh enough punishment for what they have done. People may not realize just how good a life people in jail have. They get free college level courses, cable TV, and other typical life-luxeries. They get medical care, and are treated nicely. This probably seems like "yeah, okay, so whats your point?" I just don't see how this is all that much of a punishment. Sure, you dont get free choice over everything, but the person someone murdered will never get to do anything, enjoy any luxeries of life, ever again.

-------------

http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=172327 - Forum XBL Gamertag Collection

Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:49pm

Skillet42565 wrote:

Life in prison is a joke these days. Aside from the general problems, you get all kinds of other stuff that shouldn't be in prisons. Its like a resort for sex offenders and killers.

1) I am all for reforming the life sentence. Life should be Life. 99 year minimum. I agree 100%

Capital Punishment Fallacy Numero Dos: Prisons are a happy place.

2) That is downright laughable. "Resort?" When is the last time you saw the inside of a federal prison? I suggest you take a trip, or maybe watch one of the 34785478567 documentary's available about life in prison. Or maybe PM some of the forumers who have been prison guards. It is not some cozy hide away.

-------------

Posted By: oreomann33
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:51pm

"Ever take your pants off and run backwards through a corn field?"

-------------

Posted By: battlefreak
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:52pm

Yomillio wrote:

I believe it should be "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". If you kill someone, and it is 100% proven that you in fact did commit the said crime, then and only then should you be put to death. I think we should have a more money-efficent way of inflicting the death-penalty on someone, however. The ways most killers murder is, lets face it, just plain brutal. Why do they get a quick, fairly painless death? And why should they be allowed to live? I think if we overcome the "leathal-injection" and move into more fitting and cost efficent death penalties, death for murder would be much more practical. Yes, i know that right now it makes more financial sense to lock someone up for the rest of their life, but it just isnt a harsh enough punishment for what they have done. People may not realize just how good a life people in jail have. They get free college level courses, cable TV, and other typical life-luxeries. They get medical care, and are treated nicely. This probably seems like "yeah, okay, so whats your point?" I just don't see how this is all that much of a punishment. Sure, you dont get free choice over everything, but the person someone murdered will never get to do anything, enjoy any luxeries of life, ever again.

vary good point

-------------

Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:53pm

Kristofer wrote:

battlefreak wrote:

im for it except for homocides where it was in self defence or say a father killed someone who killed or raped his daughter or somthing like that.

damn straight. i think rapists deserve it. especially repeat offenders.

those are usually let off as crimes done under duress, i remember hearing about a girl who was molested by her step dad and she stabbed him to death, got off with no charges from what i recall

Posted By: battlefreak
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:56pm

i saw a thing were this guy raped and murderd a 19 year old girl and during the court trial he kept winking and smiling at her father. So the next court date the father brought a 9mm rapped in newspaper and when the guy smiled at him he shot and killed him.

-------------

Posted By: Yomillio
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:57pm

nice.

-------------

http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=172327 - Forum XBL Gamertag Collection

Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:58pm

Yomillio wrote:

I think we should have a more money-efficent way of inflicting the death-penalty on someone, however.

It is not the cost of the killing itself. It is the appeals process that is expensive. The appeals process is what makes sure we are really sure we want to kill someone.

The ways most killers murder is, lets face it, just plain brutal. Why do they get a quick, fairly painless death? And why should they be allowed to live?

Because we are not a bunch of mindless killing beasts. We should be the better person. Not to sound cliche, but two wrongs do not a right make. We are a civilized society.

I think if we overcome the "leathal-injection" and move into more fitting and cost efficent death penalties, death for murder would be much more practical.

We have evolved past this as a society. At least I like to hope so.

Yes, i know that right now it makes more financial sense to lock someone up for the rest of their life, but it just isnt a harsh enough punishment for what they have done.

People may not realize just how good a life people in jail have. They get free college level courses, cable TV, and other typical life-luxeries. They get medical care, and are treated nicely.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Treated nicely????

Honestly now. Guards yell at you and control everything about you.

This probably seems like "yeah, okay, so whats your point?" I just don't see how this is all that much of a punishment.

You realize that criminals marked as "dangerous" are in-cell 23 hours of the day, right? Thats one hour a day you can be outside.

Sure, you dont get free choice over everything, but the person someone murdered will never get to do anything, enjoy any luxeries of life, ever again.

Which comes down to this, are we using execution as a means of justice and punishment or as blood-thirsty revenge?

-------------

Posted By: battlefreak
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:58pm

oreomann33 wrote:

"Ever take your pants off and run backwards through a corn field?"

there are 3 ways to tell if you drunk.
1. You cant walk a strait line
2. You cant say the ABC's backwards
3. If you run through a burger stand naked and yelling "I am the other white meat!"

-------------

Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:59pm

The court system is based off men, men can be wrong which means that innocent people can be killed. The court is a representation of all of society. When one person gets killed by the court we all kill them. When we wrongly kill an innocent persone we all kill an innocent person.

It's actually up for vote here in Wisconsin in November. I hope to god they loose.

-------------

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 8:59pm

battlefreak wrote:

i saw a thing were this guy raped and murderd a 19 year old girl and during the court trial he kept winking and smiling at her father. So the next court date the father brought a 9mm rapped in newspaper and when the guy smiled at him he shot and killed him.

And I hope the father spends the rest of his life in prison too. Vigilantism is a bad thing. He killed in cold blood, he is no better off than the original murderer.

-------------

Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:01pm

Tae Kwon Do wrote:

And I am the only one with the speculation?

Capital punishment works in a happy utopia land where everyone is absolutely proven guilty with no doubt at all, and we can magically wave a wand to kill someone.

Quicker is not better in this situation. Adds more problems with possible innocence, and assurance of a fair trial.

And yes, those points were opinion, but they are opinions many people share. I tend to think killing someone is a cruel thing to do, which is why we should punish someone who did it with being in jail. Killing back does not help the situation.

Opinions should have nothing to do with whether or not something should be allowed in an instance like this. The other points you provided were good, and I cannot think of a PRO that is not an opinion, but that is probably my lack of knowledge.

And you kind of repeated what I said for me, just without saying you would support it if that utiopia were the case.

-------------

Posted By: battlefreak
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:02pm

Tae Kwon Do wrote:

And I hope the father spends the rest of his life in prison too. Vigilantism is a bad thing. He killed in cold blood, he is no better off than the original murderer.

Thats a horrible position so far youve made good points but thats just ignorant.

-------------

Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:04pm

battlefreak wrote:

Tae Kwon Do wrote:

And I hope the father spends the rest of his life in prison too. Vigilantism is a bad thing. He killed in cold blood, he is no better off than the original murderer.

Thats a horrible position so far youve made good points but thats just ignorant.

How so?

-------------

Posted By: Yomillio
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:08pm

Wow, i must say you were quick to rip this apart.

Tae Kwon Do wrote:

The ways most killers murder is, lets face it, just plain brutal. Why do they get a quick, fairly painless death? And why should they be allowed to live?

Because we are not a bunch of mindless killing beasts. We should be the better person. Not to sound cliche, but two wrongs do not a right make. We are a civilized society.

This is just my own belief, as stated from the Code of Hammurabi: "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". Weher or not you believe it, i dont care.

I think if we overcome the "leathal-injection" and move into more fitting and cost efficent death penalties, death for murder would be much more practical.

We have evolved past this as a society. At least I like to hope so.

No comment... just.... no.

Yes, i know that right now it makes more financial sense to lock someone up for the rest of their life, but it just isnt a harsh enough punishment for what they have done.

People may not realize just how good a life people in jail have. They get free college level courses, cable TV, and other typical life-luxeries. They get medical care, and are treated nicely.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Treated nicely????

Honestly now. Guards yell at you and control everything about you.

Im tired. Its late. Im not thinking so well... you got this one. But still, just ignore the "nice" part and i still have a fitting argument.

This probably seems like "yeah, okay, so whats your point?" I just don't see how this is all that much of a punishment.

You realize that criminals marked as "dangerous" are in-cell 23 hours of the day, right? Thats one hour a day you can be outside.

I stand my point. They still get to live a life.

Sure, you dont get free choice over everything, but the person someone murdered will never get to do anything, enjoy any luxeries of life, ever again.

Which comes down to this, are we using execution as a means of justice and punishment or as blood-thirsty revenge?

If you think about it, isnt all justice a form of revenge? Point well argued, my friend.

-------------

http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=172327 - Forum XBL Gamertag Collection

Posted By: STOcocker
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:11pm

I agree with Tae about prison NOT being a "nice place" like some of you say. Even if they get cable TV and college courses, you should try living a life where you don't get to make any choices. I am 100% sure that you will NOT like it.

Prison life is terrible.

Posted By: Yomillio
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:16pm

STOcocker wrote:

I agree with Tae about prison NOT being a "nice place" like some of you say. Even if they get cable TV and college courses, you should try living a life where you don't get to make any choices. I am 100% sure that you will NOT like it.

Prison life is terrible.

I didnt say it wasnt, but there is still HOPE for you with this present justice system. There is no hope with a death penalty, or someone who no longer has a life...

-------------

http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=172327 - Forum XBL Gamertag Collection

Posted By: Justice
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:19pm

battlefreak wrote:

justice

What!?!

I am undecided when it comes to the death penalty.

-------------

-JUSTICE
http://www.myspace.com/outkastpaintball - Outkast Myspace

Posted By: Yomillio
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:20pm

Justice wrote:

battlefreak wrote:

justice

What!?!

I am undecided when it comes to the death penalty.

ahh, your just trying to be nice... come and jump on the hate wagon with everyone else.

-------------

http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=172327 - Forum XBL Gamertag Collection

Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:26pm

I can honestly say if someone were to rape and kill my daughter (if I had one) and they smiled and stuff at me, I would kill them too.

-------------

Posted By: Yomillio
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:27pm

^^ Thank you ^^^

-------------

http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=172327 - Forum XBL Gamertag Collection

Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:36pm

...Sigh...

Until you guys understand that prisons are not a TV-filled happy candy land, you will keep believing a fallacy.

Ok, run with me here.

Let's say that prisons were how you think they should be, whatever that may entail. Would you support life sentences over the death penalty then?

-------------

Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:39pm

I never said it was a wonderland, but its not nearly as bad as it should be. Thats what I was saying.

-------------

Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:40pm

What should it be then? How much do you really know about federal prisons?

-------------

Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:44pm

I cant say that I know about Federal Prisons, but I do know of people that prefer to live in prison because they are afforded the luxuries that most people take for granted...like food, lighting, A/C, a semi safe place to live, etc.

-------------

Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:47pm

TV, weights, fitness, free food, all seem like things that we shouldnt give people who cut other's throats...

-------------

Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:48pm

I do not disagree Gatyr.

The relevancy to Capital Punishment is questionable though.

-------------

Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:50pm

Skillet42565 wrote:

free food

Explain why we starve someone, then, or give a practical way that every prisoner in the US can productively work for their food.

-------------

Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:51pm

They have a prison in Louisiana that the prisoners make their own food. Angola, I believe.

-------------

Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:55pm

but it is still provided for them, no?

-------------

Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:55pm

Well, since Whale already pwned this thread, I'll just say that the justice system is far too imperfect for us to rely on it to tell us if we need to kill another human being. And that's leaving the moral argument of rather killing the killer is right.

On that, you can quote the "eye for an eye" thing five times a day and it wont make it anymore relavent than 100 other quotes that say the opposite. How about Ghandi? "And eye for an eye leaves everyone blind"? Or Jesus? "Turn the other cheek"? Hell, you can quote the kamarabi and I can counter quote a million others but logic says that the eye for an eye thing just wont work. It leads to a never ending chain of reprisal killings. The ancient arabs knew that and they set up a whole system of compensation to stop people from killing each other....Most other cultures have realized that it just doesn't work too.....Morals disregarded....

-------------

Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 9:56pm

They harvest every bit of what they eat. They are self-sufficient.

-------------

Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 10:00pm

Skillet42565 wrote:

They harvest every bit of what they eat. They are self-sufficient.

They do farm at the LSP, but it is not their only source of food.

The farm is more of a work-potential area than food gathering.

Once again, relevancy?
No good points have been put forth so far in pro of capital punishment.

-------------

Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 10:07pm

Pro-Capital Punishment argument:

It's more humane. Or atleast easier on the convict. Seriously, I wouldn't much rather die after a few years on the row than spend 90 years pinned up like an animal with very bad company and no hope of anything getting better.....

-------------

Posted By: Justice
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 10:08pm

Gatyr wrote:

I cant say that I know about Federal Prisons, but I do know of people that prefer to live in prison because they are afforded the luxuries that most people take for granted...like food, lighting, A/C, a semi safe place to live, etc.

I guess you never heard of the out door prison in Arizona where they live in tents, have to work for food and have 0 luxuries. Now that is my idea of the perfect prison.

And yes if someone killed a family member of mine, especially one of my kids I would make them pay with there life not carring of the circumstance's.

So yeah I guess I am for it, but only if it would effect me personally. Call me selfish.

-------------

-JUSTICE
http://www.myspace.com/outkastpaintball - Outkast Myspace

Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 10:09pm

Tae Kwon Do wrote:

Skillet42565 wrote:

They harvest every bit of what they eat. They are self-sufficient.

good points?

1. less money spent on prisoners just sitting around pumping iron

2. less prisoners=less prisons=less room taken up=more room for parks/housing

3. equal punishment for an equal crime committed. if you rape and kill a little girl, you deserve to die. i dont think too many (if any) would disagree with that.

Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 10:15pm

GI JOES SON wrote:

1. less money spent on prisoners just sitting around pumping iron

2. less prisoners=less prisons=less room taken up=more room for parks/housing

3. equal punishment for an equal crime committed. if you rape and kill a little girl, you deserve to die. i dont think too many (if any) would disagree with that.

1. For the umpteenth time, it is more expensive to kill them.

2. Not a good reason at all. Prisoners on death row make up a small % of overall prisoners. Besides, so many things go into crime rates, socioeconomic statistics, population condensing, many things.

3. Yes, many people disagree with that. Law makers, and the founders of our criminal justice system disagreed with that.

Three strikes, you are out.

-------------

Posted By: STOcocker
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 10:15pm

The whole system of law is based on second chances.
Yes, the prisoners are taught a trade, allowed to work out, and allowed to keep up on current events through media. This is all about giving the prisoners a second chance at life.

Why should we make one time offenders rot in a jail and never learn anything? They would never come out of jail(if they get out) as productive citizens. These felons would just go back to their old ways, and we would continue to pay for them when they come back to jail.

This is where my death penalty argument comes in. As I said before, I have mixed feelings on the matter. If someone is convicted multiple times, why should we continue to try?

I believe in second chances for some of these people, but if they never change, why should we keep trying and spending money on them?

Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 10:30pm

tae-its only more expensive bc the gov't wont grow a pair. we keep letting these guys appeal to try and get off and thats what costs so much. like i said before, a box of 50 .22 long rounds only costs a few bucks

Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 10:37pm

GI JOES SON wrote:

tae-its only more expensive bc the gov't wont grow a pair. we keep letting these guys appeal to try and get off and thats what costs so much.

Which is what makes our justice system a fair one.

like i said before, a box of 50 .22 long rounds only costs a few bucks

Funny. Got any valid arguments?

-------------

Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 10:41pm

Tae Kwon Do wrote:

GI JOES SON wrote:

tae-its only more expensive bc the gov't wont grow a pair. we keep letting these guys appeal to try and get off and thats what costs so much. Which is what makes our justice system a fair one. like i said before, a box of 50 .22 long rounds only costs a few bucksFunny. Got any valid arguments?

Yes. it is so fair to let someone who murdered an innocent person. Take away their one life. Their ONE LIFE in this world. A chance to walk free among the rest of us who dont take the greatest gift away from people. It makes so much sense to let murderers appeal their convictions when chances are they are guilty with the DNA evidence.

Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 10:43pm

All Pathos. No Logos.

-------------

Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 10:47pm

Tae Kwon Do wrote:

All Pathos. No Logos.

english?

Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 10:48pm

tae-fair justice system? explain OJ simpson.

and none of that 'if the glove doesnt fit you must aquit'

Posted By: Jack Carver
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 10:50pm

Kristofer wrote:

Tae Kwon Do wrote:

All Pathos. No Logos.

english?

All emotional/opinionated reasoning, no logic.

Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 10:53pm

Tae Kwon Do wrote:

All Pathos. No Logos.

For real....this is, by default, an emotionally changed question but a certain amount of logic must be instilled for any arguments to be at all valid....

Also, I find some of you guy's lack of value for human life disturbing....Grow a pair? Hurry and an execute them before they have a chance to absolutely prove their innocence or guilt? Killing innocent people is bad. That's why murders go to prison. But allowing or creating a system allows a certain probability(a high one in your version) of the government killing an innocent citizen of their country, not to mention human being, is ok?

-------------

Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 11:00pm

i'm still waiting for proof it costs more.

-------------

Posted By: Kristofer
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 11:04pm

High Voltage wrote:

i'm still waiting for proof it costs more.

that which costs more?

Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 11:09pm

Kristofer wrote:

High Voltage wrote:

i'm still waiting for proof it costs more.

that which costs more?

either.

-------------

Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 11:12pm

Kristofer wrote:

High Voltage wrote:

i'm still waiting for proof it costs more.

that which costs more?

some say it cost more to keep up the prison, feed inmates, clothe, bathe, etc.

others say its more expensive for them to appeal constantly, and if they finally do get death then it costs money to have the hearse take the body, all that.

i still want to know, on lethal injection why do they bother using an alcohol prep on the arm? its not like they're gonna get an infection...

Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 11:13pm

High Voltage wrote:

i'm still waiting for proof it costs more.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7 - Link.

I realize that it's not an unbiased site, but all their stuff is sited from state sponsored studies....

Oh and http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng - here's a good one for the whole argument....

-------------

Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 11:18pm

ryan, i still don't see it broken out and exactly what they factor in for costs. they just kinda say it with some numbers attached. and we all know numbers are bs.

-------------

Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 11:22pm

lol....if you deny the truth of math and numbers, how is breaking it down going to help? Na, I know what you're saying. I'm sure the research is out there...someone should spend a few more minutes on google....

-------------

Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 11:25pm

see i would look into it for myself, but i figure someone wants to prove something to me, they might as well do some work to get there.

i agree the research is probably out there, done by our federal government no less, but how do we trust them?

-------------

Posted By: .Ryan
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 11:50pm

lol, there's only one solution then.....Someone has to go out and do the research themselves. This has to be imperical, reproduceable, and peer reviewed. Any volunteers?

-------------

Posted By: CarbineKid
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 11:53pm

One good thing about the death penalty, is that once the sentence is carried out, there are no repeat offenders.

Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 17 October 2006 at 11:56pm

.Ryan wrote:

lol, there's only one solution then.....Someone has to go out and do the research themselves. This has to be imperical, reproduceable, and peer reviewed. Any volunteers?

lewis black mentioned a state getting a grant to do a study on why prisoners wanted to escape from prison. maybe we could actually get a federal grant for this...

hrm, it would be worth a shot.

-------------

Posted By: Tae Kwon Do
Date Posted: 18 October 2006 at 12:08am

CarbineKid wrote:

One good thing about the death penalty, is that once the sentence is carried out, there are no repeat offenders.

Hooray Bumper-stickers!

-------------

Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 18 October 2006 at 1:48am

Is a rapist-murderer deserving of life on this planet? No.

Am I, you, or any other person competent to decide it's just to take their life? Not likely.

The risk of one innocent person being executed is far too great to justify a thousand proper and 'right' executions.

As long as humanity and the judicial process are fallible, I can't support the death penalty in the vast majority of cases- and I'm a relatively recent convert from the pro-death-penalty camp.

As a criminology student I've been increasingly enlightened on judicial affairs in the past year. As a TIRED criminology student, I'll leave further comment til tomorrow.

-------------
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.

Posted By: travis75
Date Posted: 18 October 2006 at 7:40am

I would support the death penalty, but:

It seems that it is more expensive to kill someone
There is always a chance of an innocent person being killed
Life in prison might be a worse punishment for some persons

-------------
Hey MPAA, Guess what?

09 f9 11 02 9d 74 e3 5b d8 41 56 c5 63 56 88 c0!

Posted By: Rico's Revenge
Date Posted: 18 October 2006 at 10:41am

travis75 wrote:

1. It seems that it is more expensive to kill someone

Stop being a sheep... I keep hearing about how it is more expensive and have still not heard proof of how it is more expensive. Seriously, what is more expensive?

Is it the continued legal processes attempting to get the sentence reversed?

Here is a number for you... 123. That is the number of Death Row inmates that have been freed due to wrongful conviction in the last 33 years. So, now whale and his friends can say, "SEE! I TOLD YOU." However, I counter that the sentence was for the crime... the wrong person was saddled with that blanket and the wrong was corrected. Now, if that person had been sentenced to Life or even 5 years and the person was innocent... do you think there would be any less money spent on the Appeals and Re-Trials than a Death Row inmate?

Let me let you in on a little secret... a true "life term" IS a death penalty and you will get the same amount of appeals IF NOT MORE whether they get "Life" or "Death." So basically, the more expensive arguement is bunk.

Another point is that how many convicted violent crime "lifers" actually die in prison... data is hard to find, but the range that I am finding is between 22%-52%. Even going on the high side, that means that 48% of people convicted to life sentences for violent crimes are let go at some point. The really sad part is that some of the reasoning is that they need the space in the facilities for "younger" felons with fresher crimes.

BTW, do you know how many death senteces were carried out in 2005? 60. Not exactly running rampant with the needle are we?

I'm still not 100% convinced on this issue, but there is alot more than just the death penalty that needs work.

-------------
"Thats right, I play pump... your girlfriend borrowed my last set of batteries."
"How many times a second are you going to miss me before I shoot you?"
Dave Ellis Rocks!!!

Posted By: Clark Kent
Date Posted: 18 October 2006 at 1:54pm

Rico's Revenge wrote:

Let me let you in on a little secret... a true "life term" IS a death penalty and you will get the same amount of appeals IF NOT MORE whether they get "Life" or "Death."

This is false. Most, if not all, US jurisdictions that have the death penalty have MANDATORY appleals for death sentences, which is not the case for life sentences. For a life sentence, the same rules apply as for any other appeal, and you don't get to appeal willy-nilly - there has to be a reason for the appeal. Many life sentences go through with no appeals at all. For a death sentence, they are all appealed automatically.

Moreover, death penalty cases are always fought tooth and nail, due to the political angle. This is where the expense comes in. Appeals for life cases (if there are appeals) are not fought as hard.

BTW, do you know how many death senteces were carried out in 2005? 60. Not exactly running rampant with the needle are we?

Excellent point. Now figure out the cost of each of those executions. We are paying a lot of money for something we don't do very often.

Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 18 October 2006 at 2:56pm

The entire criminal justice system is FUBAR; based on philosophies that have little to nothing to do with actual statistically determined cause and effect relationships between sentencing and criminal behaviour.

Criminal sanction has four goals:
Incapacitation
Negating the offender's ability to commit further crimes. A serial arsonist who is imprisoned is criminally incapacitated; he can't burn down any more buildings. This is the most statistically justifiable reason for imprisonment.

Specific deterrence
Deterring that specific offender from committing further crimes. "Do the crime again, and you go to jail again, but for longer." The value of deterrence is debatable; most criminals assume they're smart enough to not get caught- or they wouldn't do the crime.

General deterrence
Deterring members of society from committing crimes; essentially making an example of the offender that society can see. Again, its effectiveness is questionable.

Punishment
This is your classic Hammurabian 'Eye for an Eye, Tooth for a Tooth' philosophy; it's punishment, simply put- there should be no need to explain it. However, the actual judicial value of punishment for punishment's sake is dubious.

When all is said and done, what's really necessary is a better clearance rate for crimes- more crimes resulting in charges. All the punishment in the world won't help when 3% of reported crimes result in someone getting jail time- and an average of 42 days, at that (Canadian 2003 statistics).

Criminals do not respect the law, the process, or law enforcement. Crime is best fought through prevention, not punishment. Judicial sanction should exist only to serve the end of reducing future crime, and thus needs to be developed based on statistically verifiable determinations of what does and does not reduce criminal behaviour.

-------------
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.

Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 18 October 2006 at 3:24pm

God this thread is such a crapfest.

Honestly people. Capital Punishment is so outdated and barbaric. Since there have been people on death row have been proven innocent after years of being there, how many people have been killed and have been innocent? We'll never really know, but if innocent people have been put to death unjustly, should we continue capital punishment?

In a court system, as fallible humans, we can never be 100% sure of anyone's guilt, so how the hell can you kill someone if you're not 100% sure they committed the crime? And once again, who the hell deemed humans worthy judges whether somone should live or die? This country needs to get out of the Middle Ages..

PS. It does cost more

http://www.mindspring.com/%7Ephporter/econ.html - proof
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7 - proof
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/%7Etonya/spring/cap/lcantu.htm - proof

edit - this quote sums up my stance

"The death penalty has been a gross failure. Beyond its horror and incivility, it has neither protected the innocent nor deterred the wicked. The recurrent spectacle of publicly sanctioned killing has cheapened human life and dignity without the redeeming grace which comes from justice meted out swiftly, evenly, humanely"

edit2= http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png - we're in there with some real winners....

-------------

irc.esper.net
#paintball

Posted By: Sammy
Date Posted: 18 October 2006 at 4:27pm

Tae Kwon Do wrote:

Cons:

1. Never proven as a deterrent to crime. How do you expect it to be shown as a deterrent? Saudi Arabia has the death pentaly, and extremely low crime yet you dismiss it.
2. People have been released from the "Death Row" as innocent. True
3. People could still be on death row that are innocent. Again, always the slight chance but with the use of dna less people will be wrongfully put to death.
4. Killing should not be revenged by more killing. Personal opinion
5. Brutalizes society. Please elaborate
6. Only civilized western country with death penalty. Wrong. Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea have the death pentaly. But then again, I'm not sure if you are meaning actual "Western" countries like America, or just modernized countries in general. Lastly, most Caribbean nations have the death penalty, such as the Bahamas.
7. Courts are discriminatory against minorities when condemning to death. Please elaborate. Statistics? And don't just show me that more minorities get executed than whites.
8. Killing someone should be considered to be cruel and unusual. We have rules against that. A painless death is cruel and unusual where as sticking somebody in a 8 X 10 cell for 23 hours a day is not? Again, opinion.
9. Much more expensive than life in prison. Again, it all depends on the appeals. If people were executed immediately, it would cut down on these costs, but I do agree there is a slight chance of people being wrongly executed. I think the cost of life in prison vs the cost of the death penalty is neglegible.
10. No chance of rehabilitation. The people that usually get the death penatly are multi-murderers or rapist/murderers. Not usually people we would rehabilitate anyways.

Originally posted by <span =bold>Benjichang</span>

Benjichang wrote:

In a court system, as fallible humans, we can never be 100% sure of anyone's guilt, so how the hell can you kill someone if you're not 100% sure they committed the crime? And once again, who the hell deemed humans worthy judges whether somone should live or die?

How can you throw somebody in prison forever without being sure? I would hardly say that is any better. Stop being so barbaric! Geeze.

Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 18 October 2006 at 5:29pm

My comments in red.

Sammy wrote:

Tae Kwon Do wrote:

Cons:

1. Never proven as a deterrent to crime. How do you expect it to be shown as a deterrent? Saudi Arabia has the death pentaly, and extremely low crime yet you dismiss it.

That's a spurious statistical relationship. Saudi crime rates have to do with the societal, economic, cultural, and religious principles that country operates on.

2. People have been released from the "Death Row" as innocent. True
3. People could still be on death row that are innocent. Again, always the slight chance but with the use of dna less people will be wrongfully put to death.

How many people is it acceptable to accidentally execute? I would argue that the loss of a single innocent life is far too great a risk. Why is it necessary to kill a person as opposed to imprisoning them for life (at a lesser financial cost, for that matter).

4. Killing should not be revenged by more killing. Personal opinion

Please present a logical moral argument that justifies the taking of another human life as judicial sanction. When you've accomplished that (it is possible), then go on and statistically prove to me the judicial benefit of capital punishment as it pertains to protecting individuals and society, and moreover, how capital punishment does a superior job of doing so that incarceration, while still protecting the rights of the accused.

5. Brutalizes society. Please elaborate

Violence begets violence. It also generates a societal reliance on force and violence in resolution of problems rather than attacking the initial sociological factors that cause crime in the first place. Judicial sanction should act in such a manner than the minimum amount of imposition on a person's rights are used to gain the maximum compliance with the law across the society as a whole.

6. Only civilized western country with death penalty. Wrong. Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea have the death pentaly. But then again, I'm not sure if you are meaning actual "Western" countries like America, or just modernized countries in general. Lastly, most Caribbean nations have the death penalty, such as the Bahamas.

Please provide statistical evidence that demonstrates that those countries enjoy lower crime as a result of capital punishment. You'll need to isolate any other variables such as economic and cultural factors. Also verify that none of those countries have ever executed an innocent person.

7. Courts are discriminatory against minorities when condemning to death. Please elaborate. Statistics? And don't just show me that more minorities get executed than whites.

Why, is that not sufficient? If a greater proportion of minorities are sentenced to death than the proportion of minorities convicted of capital offences, is that not indicative of a larger issue within the justice system? And if the justice system is so clearly flawed, ought that not be remedies before that system is entrusted with decisions regarding such a vital matter as the ending of a person's life?

8. Killing someone should be considered to be cruel and unusual. We have rules against that. A painless death is cruel and unusual where as sticking somebody in a 8 X 10 cell for 23 hours a day is not? Again, opinion.

You can leave a jail cell if they realize there was an error. You can recover from rape. You can seek financial recompense for lost wages. You cannot be resurrected from the grave.

9. Much more expensive than life in prison. Again, it all depends on the appeals. If people were executed immediately, it would cut down on these costs, but I do agree there is a slight chance of people being wrongly executed. I think the cost of life in prison vs the cost of the death penalty is neglegible.

Since 1989, there have been 943 people executed in the United States. Since that same year, over 184 people on death row - that is, guilty and sentenced for execution - have been exonerated by DNA evidence. That's roughly 16% of the population of death row that have been found innocent by later use of DNA evidence. How many innocent people are still there? How many were executed prior to this evidence being available? How many innocent people are not fortunate enough to have evidence out there that will exonerate them? I cannot provide figures for all three of these questions, and unless you can, how can you possibly argue that capital punishment is justifiable? Thatese are REAL INNOCENT PEOPLE who have been executed or exonerated prior to execution. Each one has or had a family. A real life. Probably some kind of job. A history. Each is a living breathing eprson with a name and a face- they aren't some abstract expression on a web page somewhere. It could happen to you.

10. No chance of rehabilitation. The people that usually get the death penatly are multi-murderers or rapist/murderers. Not usually people we would rehabilitate anyways.

But not all of them are. At least 16% of them aren't. Please provide me with statistical information on recidivism rates for murder parolees.

In Canada, 0.13% of violent crime (2006) is committed by previously incarcerated offenders. Violent offenders differ more in degree than in mentality; rates can be expected to be similarly low for murderers. Additionally, how many young to middle aged men, after serving a 25 year sentence, are likely to commit another murder? Those who are have already in most cases been determined during their incarceration adn the release or parole process through interviews, personality assessments, etc.

Originally posted by <span>Benjichang</span>

How can you throw somebody in prison forever without being sure? I would hardly say that is any better. Stop being so barbaric! Geeze.

If you were falsely convicted, which would you prefer? Do unto others...

-------------
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.

Posted By: Cedric
Date Posted: 18 October 2006 at 5:56pm

Sammy wrote:

[QUOTE=Tae Kwon Do]Cons:

4. Killing should not be revenged by more killing. Personal opinion

Hahahahaha. Are you serious?

-------------

Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 18 October 2006 at 6:04pm

Cedric wrote:

Sammy wrote:

[QUOTE=Tae Kwon Do]Cons:

4. Killing should not be revenged by more killing. Personal opinion

Hahahahaha. Are you serious?

nah, i see where hes coming from. its a matter of opinion, what your moral beliefs are, ect.

Posted By: brihard
Date Posted: 18 October 2006 at 6:07pm

GI JOES SON wrote:

Cedric wrote:

Sammy wrote:

[QUOTE=Tae Kwon Do]Cons:

4. Killing should not be revenged by more killing. Personal opinion

Hahahahaha. Are you serious?

nah, i see where hes coming from. its a matter of opinion, what your moral beliefs are, ect.

For those beliefs to have any value, they must rely on demonstrable fact. The moral value of a belief is directly proportional to the link that belief has with empirical reality and the net amount of good it can do for other people.

If your belief is based on vapours and does nothing to do any distinct good for others, it is worthless.

-------------
"Abortion is not "choice" in America. It is forced and the democrats are behind it, with the goal of eugenics at its foundation."

-FreeEnterprise, 21 April 2011.

Yup, he actually said that.

Posted By: STOcocker
Date Posted: 18 October 2006 at 6:16pm

GI JOES SON wrote:

Cedric wrote:

Sammy wrote:

[QUOTE=Tae Kwon Do]Cons:

4. Killing should not be revenged by more killing. Personal opinion

Hahahahaha. Are you serious?

nah, i see where hes coming from. its a matter of opinion, what your moral beliefs are, ect.

So you guys honestly think that it is morally correct to kill someone if he/she kills you?

If so, you have some messed up morals.

Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 18 October 2006 at 6:25pm

^honestly yea. what about oj? everyone knows he did it but of course good ol jonny got him off bc the glove didnt fit. what about saddam hussein? how many did he kill? what about lacy peterson? as i recall that guy is on death row

Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 18 October 2006 at 6:46pm

Sammy wrote:

How can you throw somebody in prison forever without being sure? I would hardly say that is any better. Stop being so barbaric! Geeze.

Well, it's certainly not as bad as straight up killing them. Putting someone in jail is one thing. I'm obviously not for anyone innocent being wrongly convicted. Killing someone is much more permanent than incarceration. Once someone is dead and they're found to be innoccent, there's not much that can be done. Your argument is irrelevant. It's a crappy situation either way.

-------------

irc.esper.net
#paintball

Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 18 October 2006 at 8:28pm

I think I would rather die than be raped in prison, then locked in a tiny, smelly room. I would definately take the chair over that.

-------------