Pages: 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 15

Topic closed

2011-03-15 10:28:47
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6801|Texas - Bigger than France
Repeating this for you lowing

Its quite simple, actually.

1) Some people consider death penalty to be a deterrence
2) Some people consider life in prison to be a deterrence
3) Some people consider both the death penalty and life in prison to be a deterrence
4) Some people will kill either way.

So, basic logic.  If the population is larger with a menu of options than it is with only one option...

So by arguing one over the other, you are decreasing the deterrent for murder.
2011-03-15 10:37:20
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Pug wrote:

Repeating this for you lowing

Its quite simple, actually.

1) Some people consider death penalty to be a deterrence
2) Some people consider life in prison to be a deterrence
3) Some people consider both the death penalty and life in prison to be a deterrence
4) Some people will kill either way.

So, basic logic.  If the population is larger with a menu of options than it is with only one option...

So by arguing one over the other, you are decreasing the deterrent for murder.
I can agree with that, but the argument for the anti-death penalty crowd is no death penalty ever, for no reason, life is sacred, it is not a deterrence, and life in prison is far worse. There is no gray area for their argument.
2011-03-15 12:21:34
Jenspm
penis
+1,716|6991|St. Andrews / Oslo

FEOS wrote:

Some actions/decisions render one unrecoverable/irredeemable, regardless of the "progress" made afterward. It's a sad fact of life.

lowing wrote:

I read with great interest until I got to the last paragraph and sentence.  In murder cases, I take the opinion if the murder can not be undone, neither can the punishment, regardless of them "coming to Jesus".

I will also add, I do not think murder should be the only capital crime. Rape and child molestation should also be included as capital crimes.

Very case selective, but there is some damage that can not be undone even if left alive, by time.
It looks like both of you have similar views here - they've committed a crime so grotesque that they don't ever deserve to be forgiven and deserve harsh punishments for their actions (be it by death or whatever). Correct?

Well, I just disagree. In my opinion, there is no point in punishment if it doesn't a) scare the person from doing it again or b) scare anyone else from doing it in fear of getting the same punishment. I know you weren't the one that brought deterrence into this, lowing, but the reason I did is because I have one clear idea: there is no point in harsher punishment if it doesn't increase deterrence. In the same sense as there's no point in punishing your kid if it doesn't deter him from doing it again.

I guess we'll just fundamentally disagree forever on this, but I really want you to understand my point anyway. I guess it all comes down to one question: You have a killer locked up in prison. You can kill him, but that doesn't have any effect on other potential murderers: it won't scare them away from murdering. What good, then, comes out of capital punishment?

I do realize that I'm assuming that capital punishment doesn't work as a better deterrent than prison, and that is a completely unfair statement - I have no grounds to state this as fact. But it is for the sake of illustrating that deterrence is, in my opinion, central in analyzing the effectiveness of any form of punishment. And since questions have been raised as to the deterrence of capital punishments, questions have to be raised about that sort of penalty as well.

Varegg wrote:

I have given my opinion on that earlier as mention several times now ...

I could prolly rant about the why and how this and that explains it but that would only be seen as another "hate America" post so I'll leave it ...

What you could do lowing is make some studies and try to grasp why you have such high crime rates in general, why so many murders ... is it a lack of respect of human life in general?

Maybe the "get the fuck off my lawn" attitude is so deeply rooted in your society that it makes the death penalty as a deterrence useless ...

You have the highest murder rates and you have the highest incarceration rates in the world, there must be a reason for that no?

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

what is a deterrence to someone who does not value innocent life enough, to keep from taking it?
Why not look at how other countries achieve low crime rates instead of dreaming up new punishments for criminals - which clearly aren't effective in deterring crime if being put to death or life in prison being butt-raped by black men don't do the job.

But lowing wants to get a kick out of torturing arsonists when its more effective to save lives by installing smoke detectors.
This is far too simple. The debate is on whether or not the death penalty is an effective or correct choice of punishment. You cannot say "Oh, look at Europe, they have lower crime rates and no death penalty, thus death penalty is a waste of time" - well fucking done, but they are two completely different societies. You cannot compare them. Dilbert, you say that these punishments "clearly aren't effective in deterring crime", but you have no grounds in which to say this. Sure, there are studies which indicate that there isn't an improved deterrence, but the scope is small and hardly conclusive. Nothing is clear, that is why there is so much debate around it.

Sure, there are other things that can (and should, perhaps) be done to reduce crime, but that's not what this thread is about. It's about whether or not the death penalty should be used.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png https://twitter.com/phoenix/favicon.ico
2011-03-15 12:32:28
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6258|...

Jenspm wrote:

It looks like both of you have similar views here - they've committed a crime so grotesque that they don't ever deserve to be forgiven and deserve harsh punishments for their actions (be it by death or whatever). Correct?

Well, I just disagree.
Jeffrey Dahmer committed his first murder in the summer of 1978. While still living in his father's house, and with his family away, Dahmer picked up a hitchhiker named Steven Hicks. He offered to drink beer with him back at his father's house and planned to have sex with him. Dahmer bludgeoned Hicks to death with a 10 lb. dumbell, striking the back of his head as he proceeded to walk away, later saying he had committed the crime because "the guy wanted to leave and I didn't want him to."[25] Dahmer buried the body in the backyard.[26] Nine years passed until Dahmer claimed his next victim, Steven Tuomi.[20] After the Tuomi murder, Dahmer continued to kill sporadically: two more murders in 1988, and another in early 1989, usually picking up his victims in gay bars and having sex with them before killing them.[27] He kept the skull of his 1989 victim, Anthony Sears, until he was caught.[28]

In May 1990, he moved out of his grandmother's house for the last time and into the apartment that later became infamous: Apartment 213, 924 North 25th Street, Milwaukee. Dahmer picked up the pace of his killing: four more murders before the end of 1990, two more in February and April 1991, and another in May 1991.[29]

In the early morning hours of May 27, 1991, 14-year-old Konerak Sinthasomphone (by coincidence, the younger brother of the boy whom Dahmer had molested) was discovered on the street, wandering naked, heavily under the influence of drugs and bleeding from his rectum. Two young women from the neighborhood found the dazed boy and called 911. Dahmer chased his victim down and tried to take him away, but the women stopped him.[30] Dahmer told police that Sinthasomphone was his 19-year-old boyfriend, and that they had an argument while drinking. Against the protests of the two women who had called 911, police turned him over to Dahmer. They later reported smelling a strange scent while inside Dahmer's apartment, but did not investigate it. The smell was the body of Tony Hughes, Dahmer's previous victim, decomposing in the bedroom. The two policemen did not make any attempt to verify Sinthasomphone's age and failed to run a background check that would have revealed Dahmer was a convicted child molester still under probation.[31] Later that night, Dahmer killed and dismembered Sinthasomphone, keeping his skull as a souvenir.

By summer 1991, Dahmer was murdering approximately one person each week. He killed Matt Turner on June 30, Jeremiah Weinberger on July 5, Oliver Lacy on July 12, and finally Joseph Brandehoft on July 19. Dahmer got the idea that he could create "zombies" of his victims, and attempted to do so by drilling holes into their skulls and injecting hydrochloric acid or boiling water into the frontal lobe area of their brains with a large syringe.[32] Other residents of the Oxford Apartments complex noticed terrible smells coming from Apartment 213, as well as the thumps of falling objects and the occasional buzzing of a power saw.[33]
After reading all of this, especially the boldened bit, can you tell me he didn't deserve capital punishment?
inane little opines
2011-03-15 12:40:51
Jenspm
penis
+1,716|6991|St. Andrews / Oslo

It's not a question of what he 'deserves', it's a question of the effect of the punishment.

Would the threat of capital punishment have been a more effective way of deterring him from committing the crime than the threat of prison? For the sake of debate, let's say it it wouldn't. So, capital punishment would not have stopped this crime. And that is the essence of punishment, the whole idea, the reason we have a legal system - to prevent crime.

So, the death penalty didn't stop the crime, the crime is done, he is in prison and no longer a threat to society. What good comes out of killing him?
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png https://twitter.com/phoenix/favicon.ico
2011-03-15 12:44:38
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6258|...
The man did things so horrible it goes beyond trying to rehabilitate him or anyone else - or setting an example, some people, because of their actions, really do deserve to die. I consider ridding society of such a twisted human being as doing everyone a favor.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-03-15 12:45:02)

inane little opines
2011-03-15 12:55:38
Jenspm
penis
+1,716|6991|St. Andrews / Oslo

Right, so if we were to go through the society's benefits of killing him and letting him live:

Killing him:
- Nothing. Society will not notice a difference in him being locked up in prison and him being in jail.

Letting him live:
- There is a chance that he'll 'come around' and give something to society. This doesn't mean that he'll be deemed safe to fully enter the public sphere again, but he can still contribute under government surveillance. This can be anything from doing some community service to writing books and educating, or even going out there and getting a job in the private market.


I just can't see past the fact that letting him live always seems the better option.

edit: this is only the extremely basic, economic level of social benefiting, but yeah.

Last edited by Jenspm (2011-03-15 12:58:32)

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png https://twitter.com/phoenix/favicon.ico
2011-03-15 13:03:45
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6258|...
How about giving peace of mind to the families of his 17 victims? And ensuring that he can never get back into society because there's no way someone like that could function.
inane little opines
2011-03-15 13:26:20
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Jenspm wrote:

It's not a question of what he 'deserves', it's a question of the effect of the punishment.

Would the threat of capital punishment have been a more effective way of deterring him from committing the crime than the threat of prison? For the sake of debate, let's say it it wouldn't. So, capital punishment would not have stopped this crime. And that is the essence of punishment, the whole idea, the reason we have a legal system - to prevent crime.

So, the death penalty didn't stop the crime, the crime is done, he is in prison and no longer a threat to society. What good comes out of killing him?
Actually no, in this thread it is a question of what he deserves, as well as what the victims family deserves. Deterrence is not a part of the issue I am raising.
2011-03-15 13:28:46
Jenspm
penis
+1,716|6991|St. Andrews / Oslo

Shocking wrote:

How about giving peace of mind to the families of his 17 victims? And ensuring that he can never get back into society because there's no way someone like that could function.
Why do the families need this person dead? This is the thing that I find sad - that some people have an urge for that eye-for-an-eye styled revenge.

I realize that I'm being slightly hypocritical, because I would, admittedly, want the killer of my children to be punished, but I would never wish death upon anyone.

In any case, I don't want society as a whole to suffer and lose a potential human resource to cater for a few families' lust for revenge. Furthermore, from a moral standpoint, I think it's hypocritical that we as a society are so fundamentally against the idea of murder, yet think that we, the 'good guys', can justify killing them, the 'bad guys'. What makes us better than them? Is it because we perceive our own purpose of murder to be better than theirs? What if their murders are, in their eyes, completely rational? Do they 'deserve' to die? Quite obviously they need to be moved away from society as they don't "match up" and are thus a threat to the safety of the "normal people", but is that enough to warrant murder?

And to your final point: Who are you to say that someone "can't ever function"?
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png https://twitter.com/phoenix/favicon.ico
2011-03-15 13:30:32
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6258|...
By the way dahmer was sentenced to life imprisonment but got killed by an inmate, nevertheless I would've advocated a death sentence.
inane little opines
2011-03-15 13:33:44
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Jenspm wrote:

Shocking wrote:

How about giving peace of mind to the families of his 17 victims? And ensuring that he can never get back into society because there's no way someone like that could function.
Why do the families need this person dead? This is the thing that I find sad - that some people have an urge for that eye-for-an-eye styled revenge.

I realize that I'm being slightly hypocritical, because I would, admittedly, want the killer of my children to be punished, but I would never wish death upon anyone.

In any case, I don't want society as a whole to suffer and lose a potential human resource to cater for a few families' lust for revenge. Furthermore, from a moral standpoint, I think it's hypocritical that we as a society are so fundamentally against the idea of murder, yet think that we, the 'good guys', can justify killing them, the 'bad guys'. What makes us better than them? Is it because we perceive our own purpose of murder to be better than theirs? What if their murders are, in their eyes, completely rational? Do they 'deserve' to die? Quite obviously they need to be moved away from society as they don't "match up" and are thus a threat to the safety of the "normal people", but is that enough to warrant murder?

And to your final point: Who are you to say that someone "can't ever function"?
What makes me think I am better than a rapist, murderer, child molester? Are you seriously asking that question?

Are you really suggesting that there might be a real "rational" point of view for a killer killing an innocent person?

Is your argument so lame that these are the questions you are reduced to asking?
2011-03-15 13:39:28
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6926

Jenspm, have you or anyone you know ever been in prison or been found guilty of a capital crime?  Know someone who has taken another life?  Just curious.

What value of a potential resource when that same person has taken upon himself to kill other potential resources?  What right did the killer have to take another life?  He apparently doesn't hold the same value for potential resources.
2011-03-15 13:44:17
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5845

I'm okay with the death penalty on a ethical level kinda against on a practical l but the argument of ''he killed someone, he loses if right to not be killed'' is kinda weak. Two wrongs don't make a right.

piratical? seriously, stupid auto correct

Last edited by Macbeth (2011-03-15 13:48:12)

2011-03-15 13:46:18
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6926

Accidental homicide, or accessory to murder is one thing.  But serial killer, hell yeah, execution with prejudice.
2011-03-15 13:48:44
Jenspm
penis
+1,716|6991|St. Andrews / Oslo

What I'm trying to say is, what you may consider a valid reason for murder, others may not (i.e. me).

In the same sense, others may have an idea of a valid reason for murder that you don't share.

Murderers will commit murders because they, at the time, believe it is the best thing to do - they believe they have a valid reason, so to speak. Do they deserve to die because their reasons don't align with ours? I don't think so.

Understandably, society would want to keep him 'behind bars' for the sake of security, but I still don't think anyone deserves death.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png https://twitter.com/phoenix/favicon.ico
2011-03-15 13:50:54
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6926

Asking again.  You know anyone with a capital offense criminal background?
2011-03-15 13:53:29
Jenspm
penis
+1,716|6991|St. Andrews / Oslo

Nein.
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png https://twitter.com/phoenix/favicon.ico
2011-03-15 13:59:38
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6926

Oh really.  Anyone you know that has been murdered?

While not every murder case deserves the death penalty, given a significant heinous crime, execution would be appropriate in my opinion.
2011-03-15 14:02:08
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6258|...

Jenspm wrote:

Murderers will commit murders because they, at the time, believe it is the best thing to do - they believe they have a valid reason, so to speak. Do they deserve to die because their reasons don't align with ours? I don't think so.

Understandably, society would want to keep him 'behind bars' for the sake of security, but I still don't think anyone deserves death.
Justification for insanity and immense acts of cruelty right here.
inane little opines
2011-03-15 14:06:06
13urnzz
Banned
+5,830|6756

Shocking wrote:

By the way dahmer was sentenced to life imprisonment but got killed by an inmate, nevertheless I would've advocated a death sentence.
apparently, he did get life in prison.

i've stated my position, so i only stop by to add that remark.
2011-03-15 14:10:05
Jenspm
penis
+1,716|6991|St. Andrews / Oslo

Ilocano wrote:

Oh really.  Anyone you know that has been murdered?
No. I hope these questions have a purpose.

Shocking wrote:

Justification for insanity and immense acts of cruelty right here.
Justification in the sense that I don't believe anyone deserves to be killed because they are, by our definition, "insane".
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/flickricon.png https://twitter.com/phoenix/favicon.ico
2011-03-15 14:19:17
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6910|USA

Jenspm wrote:

What I'm trying to say is, what you may consider a valid reason for murder, others may not (i.e. me).

In the same sense, others may have an idea of a valid reason for murder that you don't share.

Murderers will commit murders because they, at the time, believe it is the best thing to do - they believe they have a valid reason, so to speak. Do they deserve to die because their reasons don't align with ours? I don't think so.

Understandably, society would want to keep him 'behind bars' for the sake of security, but I still don't think anyone deserves death.
We are talking about western society, bringing in the middle east and their social values is an entirely different issue. There is no socially acceptable "valid reason"  for killing an innocent person. Period. to try and argue that there might be is as weak as it gets.
2011-03-15 14:20:42
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|6258|...

Jenspm wrote:

Justification in the sense that I don't believe anyone deserves to be killed because they are, by our definition, "insane".
These people are born in our society, they live in our society, why shouldn't our society be allowed to rid itself of them?

What about war? Should we shoot with rubber bullets?
inane little opines
2011-03-15 14:36:19
Ilocano
buuuurrrrrrppppp.......
+341|6926

Jenspm wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

Oh really.  Anyone you know that has been murdered?
No. I hope these questions have a purpose.

Shocking wrote:

Justification for insanity and immense acts of cruelty right here.
Justification in the sense that I don't believe anyone deserves to be killed because they are, by our definition, "insane".
Purpose.  By association.

Either sympathizing for someone you know in prison, or someone you know who has been murdered.  I know people on both sides.  Someone who has never been personally touched by such an incident can't give the same perspective on the value of victims and perpetrators.

Topic closed

Pages: 1 … 10 11 12 13 14 15

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard