Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2015, 03:35 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(16-05-2015 03:26 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(16-05-2015 03:21 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  It's just not cost effective in the US. Now in North Korea where Kim Foo Yung can just line your ass up in front an antiaircraft gun and vaporize your ass for falling asleep in front of him, yeah that's cost effective.

Because becoming *MORE* like North Korea should be the goal of every western democracy Dodgy

If we're going to bring back the firing squad as a method of execution we ought to at least think about doing it proper.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2015, 03:48 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(16-05-2015 01:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  
(16-05-2015 01:01 PM)Cosmic Discourse Wrote:  My current position on the death penalty, is firm opposition. I understand that when emotion is involved in a situation and/or its of a personal nature, how some may view it as justifiable punishment.

In a perfect scenario (Utopian world) where we're able to discern absolutely if an individual is guilty of egregious crimes, I would be more inclined to accept the death penalty as an option.

My own personal feelings, even in that Utopian example, would still be to decline the option of corporal punishment. I feel as though letting someone sit with the thoughts of their actions for the remainder of their natural life, is actually a more condemning punishment (though more costly) than giving them a get out of life free card (so to speak).

Of course this doesn't apply well to our present legal system, since a life sentence doesn't actually mean life (which I feel it should).

Why punish? The person who committed whatever major cruelty towards others just needs to be kept from doing it again. That can take any shape or form, and I am for allowing said person to decide for themselves.

I don't believe in evil, I think some people are born with certain defects, such as a total absence of empathy. I don't see how punishment is doing anyone any good, or is even fair.

The person themselves needs to decide how to remove themselves from society - imprisonment or death. It's the kind thing to do, and it serves the purpose.

For some crimes, punishment serves as a deterrent for the offender and potential offenders.

In many cases, retribution is necessary. Retribution in the form of labor or monetary recompense to the victim(s) should be considered, especially where the offense was taking or damaging another's property or their ability to provide for themselves. The retribution should be in proportion to the offense.

In some cases, rehabilitation is necessary. Punishment and/or retribution may be a component of rehabilitation. However, rehabilitation is different from punishment in that the purpose is not to deter, but to effectively change the thought processes or circumstances that led a person to commit an offense in the first place.

There are some cases, where neither deterrence nor rehabilitation is effective or even desired. These are cases where the best course of action is to simply prevent a person from ever having the opportunity to offend again. In these cases, I am in favor of allowing the person to choose solitary confinement (with the bare minimum of resources required for survival) or death. However, these cases should also require a higher burden of proof of guilt and clear evidence that neither punishment nor rehabilitation have been or would be effective in the future.

In none of these cases should vengeance be the deciding factor.

Full disclosure: Neither I nor anyone close to me have ever been the victim of a serious crime. Should I find myself in that situation, it is quite probable that my opinion on the matter would change.

I just wanted to let you know that I love you even though you aren't naked right now. Heart
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2015, 03:56 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(16-05-2015 03:35 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-05-2015 03:26 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Because becoming *MORE* like North Korea should be the goal of every western democracy Dodgy

If we're going to bring back the firing squad as a method of execution we ought to at least think about doing it proper.


One thing you can say for firing squads --- they're pretty effective - if a bit messy....

And - they're quick......

I've never heard about the condemned complaining that it was taking too long....

And----

Sell off the rights to being on the firing squad to the highest bidder......

We could pay off the national debt in a couple months.....

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2015, 05:11 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
Americas way of punishment seems to be a little ineffective, yet what do I expect?

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2015, 11:22 PM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(16-05-2015 12:22 PM)Dom Wrote:  I don't believe in punishment. I don't believe in evil. I think that some individuals have something wrong with them and need to be removed from society so they can't hurt anyone else. Whether they live in prison or die isn't of importance ...
If they could make the death penalty much cheaper than life imprisonment then perhaps the savings could go towards the victims, or into the health system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-05-2015, 01:47 AM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(16-05-2015 03:48 PM)TurkeyBurner Wrote:  
(16-05-2015 01:16 PM)Dom Wrote:  Why punish? The person who committed whatever major cruelty towards others just needs to be kept from doing it again. That can take any shape or form, and I am for allowing said person to decide for themselves.

I don't believe in evil, I think some people are born with certain defects, such as a total absence of empathy. I don't see how punishment is doing anyone any good, or is even fair.

The person themselves needs to decide how to remove themselves from society - imprisonment or death. It's the kind thing to do, and it serves the purpose.

For some crimes, punishment serves as a deterrent for the offender and potential offenders.

In many cases, retribution is necessary. Retribution in the form of labor or monetary recompense to the victim(s) should be considered, especially where the offense was taking or damaging another's property or their ability to provide for themselves. The retribution should be in proportion to the offense.

In some cases, rehabilitation is necessary. Punishment and/or retribution may be a component of rehabilitation. However, rehabilitation is different from punishment in that the purpose is not to deter, but to effectively change the thought processes or circumstances that led a person to commit an offense in the first place.

There are some cases, where neither deterrence nor rehabilitation is effective or even desired. These are cases where the best course of action is to simply prevent a person from ever having the opportunity to offend again. In these cases, I am in favor of allowing the person to choose solitary confinement (with the bare minimum of resources required for survival) or death. However, these cases should also require a higher burden of proof of guilt and clear evidence that neither punishment nor rehabilitation have been or would be effective in the future.

In none of these cases should vengeance be the deciding factor.

Full disclosure: Neither I nor anyone close to me have ever been the victim of a serious crime. Should I find myself in that situation, it is quite probable that my opinion on the matter would change.

First I agree with this that vengeance should not be a factor.

As for deterrent value of death penalty - http://www.deathpenalty.org/downloads/Ra...dy2009.pdf
It appears that: "death penalty does not add deterrent effects to those already achieved by long imprisonment".

I think court sentences should prioritize rehabilitation whenever it is possible as offenders will return to society at some time, and it wouldn't do if their stay in prison would be only focused on punishment.

Polish prisons for example are focused on punishments rather than rehabilitation and recidivism rate is 40%. Norway prisons which are more about rehabilitation results in 20% recidivism rate. Every one can draw own conclusion.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
17-05-2015, 03:18 AM (This post was last modified: 17-05-2015 08:12 AM by Thumpalumpacus.)
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(16-05-2015 12:41 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  Some individuals certainly should be removed from society, on that I agree. Though I don't know if death penalty really should be used. And as for letting them choose it's interesting concept.

As for permanently jailed I think they should live in humane conditions, but speaking generally I think condition in prison should help prisoners return to society. Recidivism isn't good thing.

I think that depends on the nature of the crime and the psychology of the individual. If the crime is a lower-grade felony -- generally nonviolent, say -- then certainly penitence is the job of the penitentiary. But some crimes are beyond the pale, and at that point, the goal of incarceration shifts from teaching a lesson to keeping society safe.

As for humane conditions: healthy food, a few hours a day outside, a well-stocked library: great. A television, no. A computer? Depends on the crime, I'd think. But books, food, water, a little fresh air.

For nonviolent offenders aiming to reintegrate, perhaps an organization like the California Conservation Corps, which uses inmate crews to help fight wildfires, after vetting and training, of course. Available education, definitely. Therapy and substance-abuse help.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
17-05-2015, 03:31 AM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(17-05-2015 03:18 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(16-05-2015 12:41 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  Some individuals certainly should be removed from society, on that I agree. Though I don't know if death penalty really should be used. And as for letting them choose it's interesting concept.

As for permanently jailed I think they should live in humane conditions, but speaking generally I think condition in prison should help prisoners return to society. Recidivism isn't good thing.

I think that depends on the nature of the crime and the psychology of the individual. If the crime is a lower-grade felony -- generally nonviolent, say -- then certainly penitence is the job of the penitentiary. But some crimes are beyond the pale, and at that point, the goal of incarceration shifts from teaching a lesson to keeping society safe.

As for humane conditions: healthy food, a few hours a day outside, a well-stocked library: great. A television, no. A computer? Depends on the crime, I'd think. But books, food, water, a little fresh air.

For nonviolent offenders aiming to reintegrate, perhaps an organization like the California Conservation Corps, which uses inmate crews to helps fight wildfires, after vetting and training, of course. Available education, definitely. Therapy and substance-abuse help.

As for lower grade felonies I agree, though maybe even those who commit serious crime aren't beyond rehabilitation. I think it depends on why they done it and other circumstances.

I would say Norway with it's low recidivist rate would be good example of proper penitentiary system. And in my opinion primary goals would be keeping society safe and allowing offenders to return to society if possible obviously.

As for the last part I agree.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
17-05-2015, 03:52 AM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(17-05-2015 03:18 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  For nonviolent offenders aiming to reintegrate, perhaps an organization like the California Conservation Corps, which uses inmate crews to helps fight wildfires, after vetting and training, of course.

Does California provide additional training or re-certification once they're out in order to maintain a sort of massive reserve unit for fighting wildfires and other natural disasters? Consider

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
17-05-2015, 08:16 AM
RE: Death Penalty. A Means to an End or A Sadistic Action?
(17-05-2015 03:52 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 03:18 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  For nonviolent offenders aiming to reintegrate, perhaps an organization like the California Conservation Corps, which uses inmate crews to helps fight wildfires, after vetting and training, of course.

Does California provide additional training or re-certification once they're out in order to maintain a sort of massive reserve unit for fighting wildfires and other natural disasters? Consider

Not to my knowledge, no. The convicts are supplemental to the duly-hired crews.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: