ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: brenden on August 02, 2012, 08:24:30 pm
-
For or against? And don't forget to justify ;)
-
I'm against it. If you are punishing someone for committing a heinous crime, isn't it a little contradictory to commit another heinous crime to 'punish' them?
As well as that, being killed after being charged with a heinous crime is an easy way out as opposed to living the rest of your life until you die naturally (like a prison in Russia) or for 30+ years. I think isolating an individual so that they have a seemingly infinite amount of time to think about what they have done is a much better punishment than killing them.
In terms of a deterrent, I think severe imprisonment is a much better deterrent compared to capital punishment. Let's take an example of someone who is going to become a serial killer or something like that. Perhaps their intentions are to murder as many people as possible before taking their own life. The chance of them being caught and killed for their actions probably isn't going to phase them if they're already planning on taking their own life.
Being incarcerated for 30+ years however....
-
Well reasoned.
What about the guy who threw his daughter over the Westgate? He'll be isolated for his own protection, but doesn't anyone want to simply... kill this guy?
And for those of you that believe in an afterlife and the concept of Hell, would you be more eager for the death penalty so people like the one above can get to eternity quicker?
-
Well reasoned.
What about the guy who threw his daughter over the Westgate? He'll be isolated for his own protection, but doesn't anyone want to simply... kill this guy?
And for those of you that believe in an afterlife and the concept of Hell, would you be more eager for the death penalty so people like the one above can get to eternity quicker?
Pertaining to the guy who threw his daughter over the west gate, what about him? I don't see how his case is relevant to the topic at hand. Many people would want to kill him, not only in prison, but in the community, also. Like you said, he will be in isolation so that he doesn't get killed. Bad news for him because prisoners in isolation pretty much never get to converse with anyone other than a couple of prison guards. I went to Barwon Prison last year from school and it was a very cool experience.
Obviously couldn't meet anyone from isolation, but met a drug dealer, a drug dealer who murdered a guy who tried to kill him and two straight murderers. All four of them despised people who are charged with any sex offences and made it very clear what they wish they could do.
Apparently the prison guards "accidentally" let a rapist from isolation to the canteen area while other prisoners were there and some guy who had made a sugar solution poured the boiling thick liquid onto him straight from a kettle. They said it wasn't pretty.
On a side note, if I ever go into law, I'd like to be a defence barrister.
-
Yeah Barwon was mad! Did you talk to the dude who got done for armed robbery and he used a spoon?
Why defence?
It was more a set-up for the afterlife question.
-
The thing with capital punishment is that, generally, it is not reversible. In the past, there have been cases where someone has maintained innocence, gotten executed and then new evidence has found that they were in fact, innocent - I think this is a big issue.
-
Yeah Barwon was mad! Did you talk to the dude who got done for armed robbery and he used a spoon?
Why defence?
It was more a set-up for the afterlife question.
I may be barking up the completely wrong tree but I really feel as though it would be a very interesting career and that I would look forward to getting up and going to work every day.
I also feel as though it will be a career in which I can make good use of my self-claimed good public speaking, debating and reasoning skills.
If anyone reading this knows much about defence barristers and their jobs, please PM me. I'd love to hear from you.
Back on topic, would like to hear some more opinions from other people :)
The thing with capital punishment is that, generally, it is not reversible. In the past, there have been cases where someone has maintained innocence, gotten executed and then new evidence has found that they were in fact, guilty - I think this is a big issue.
Am I reading this correctly? Contradictory.
-
Paul mixed up his words. 1 in 10 people have been exonerated after they've been executed. Scary stat.
Not sure on the 1 million stat. Maybe 10 bucks for a length of rope.
-
It's a complex issue, since I see both cases as equally valid and neither being fundamentally flawed. Personally, I'm not particularly strongly against the death penalty, I think it can be justified given certain conditions. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a good way to legislate this, since law is black and white and has no connection to 'justice'. I'd much rather see it never introduced than introduced with inappropriate definitions or restrictions.
The chance of them being caught and killed for their actions probably isn't going to phase them if they're already planning on taking their own life.
If they're planning to take their own life, I don't think any punishment is going to faze them
What about the guy who threw his daughter over the Westgate? He'll be isolated for his own protection, but doesn't anyone want to simply... kill this guy?
Justice v. revenge, which is one of the problems with introducing the death penalty. If you let people make decisions based on emotions or how shocking a crime is, it's not going to end prettily. I suppose it gets even more clouded when you introduce the whole issue of psychiatric disorders and mental issues and whether or not you can consider somebody to be responsible for what they do in this case.
And for those of you that believe in an afterlife and the concept of Hell, would you be more eager for the death penalty so people like the one above can get to eternity quicker?
From a purely semantic perspective, if afterlife is eternal it's irrelevant how long it takes them to get there. In any case, I don't think the next life (whatever, wherever it is) should be a basis for decisionmaking on this scale
-
I think capital punishment may be a bit extreme but to give someone isolation and white torture, (extreme sensory deprivation) then that would be more appropriate. Honestly the phrase an eye for an eye is unjust and irreversible.
-
I think capital punishment may be a bit extreme but to give someone isolation and white torture, (extreme sensory deprivation) then that would be more appropriate. Honestly the phrase an eye for an eye is unjust and irreversible.
So it's unjust to kill them but you're totally okay with cruel and unusual punishments? What exactly is your moral reasoning here?
-
I don't think capital punishment is the right way to do things. They should have to live with what they've done. Executing someone is giving them the easy way out.
-
**** WARNING, DON'T READ THIS if you don't have a strong stomach ***
It contains a description of a death sentence being carried out.
http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/888/
-
The chance of them being caught and killed for their actions probably isn't going to phase them if they're already planning on taking their own life.
If they're planning to take their own life, I don't think any punishment is going to faze them[/quote]
I highly doubt that 30+ years of incarceration, possibly in solitary confinement for a large proportion of that time with almost nothing to do but reflect over what they have done etcetera, wouldn't phase majority of people. These people who plan to take their lives succeeding the committal of their crime want to do so for a reason... To "leave" the world and escape any accountability for their actions. I think many people would think twice of they knew that there was no "easy" way out but had to endure their length sentence.
In Russia, the most serious offenders, murderers/cannibals and stuff, are locked up for the rest of their life until they die. I think that is true punishment for a crime of a heinous nature.
We're getting caught up in the wrong ideas though.. The aim of imprisonment is to rehabilitate as opposed to punishing an individual. Doesn't look like its working though, considering the recidivism rates in recent years...
-
http://www.realclearpolicy.com/video/2012/07/13/killing_californias_costly_death_penalty.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/20/california-death-penalty-execution-costs
So before debating whether capital punishment should be allowed, I would like to point out the cold facts.
Firstly, standard looking after a prisoner per year is 100,000 dollars a year. It has cost California, four billion dollars in funding the death penalty program for only 13 executions thus far. This comprises litigation, on going court files and appeals which includes challenges to the court rulings.
Now before we step into the zone of morality
The question I'd like to ask all of you, what's the point of doing it if its going to cost millions of dollars of tax payers' money?
And if you do find them guilty (undeniably guilty) that sanctions capital punishment, what is the economic cost of keeping them in jail until the point of execution?
If you argue that we should kill them immediately after sentencing without appeal, does this truly vindicate the victims? What about the rights of the prisoner?
If there are appeals? What is the economic cost?
-
Yeah I don't believe in it, since the 'evidence' in the court of law doesn't always reflect who actually committed the crime.
-
I do not support the death penalty in cases that are open to some conjecture. For instance, there's was a woman in Hobart who was found "guilty" of murdering her husband, but no body was ever found, no weapon (because no one could say exactly how the man died except that he disappeared off his yacht - he could be alive in the Bahamas for all we know), not all leads were followed up, and the prosecution failed to establish a reasonable motive.
But in cases where it is proven absolutely that the accused is a killer and a danger to society (not to mention a drain on the public purse by someone who has forfeited their right to live in society) then I'm all for it. For example, Julian Knight, Ivan Milat and Martin Bryant.
-
I think that Capital punishment is in most cases useless.. since the people who commit these terrible inconceivable trategies generally have fuck all to lose and don't really care if they die or not, and in some cases even don't mind death and yearn for it. What's a worse punishment being injected whith chemicals and dying painlessly or being trapped in a prison forever haunted by the evil crime you committed and with the law of the prison reigning over you? If I committed such an evil act, I would prefer the death penalty.. its such an easy way out.. so why would you give it to them?
I do not support the death penalty in cases that are open to some conjecture. For instance, there's was a woman in Hobart who was found "guilty" of murdering her husband, but no body was ever found, no weapon (because no one could say exactly how the man died except that he disappeared off his yacht - he could be alive in the Bahamas for all we know), not all leads were followed up, and the prosecution failed to establish a reasonable motive.
But in cases where it is proven absolutely that the accused is a killer and a danger to society (not to mention a drain on the public purse by someone who has forfeited their right to live in society) then I'm all for it. For example, Julian Knight, Ivan Milat and Martin Bryant.
Once again.. why would you give them an easy way out?
-
I think that Capital punishment is in most cases useless.. since the people who commit these terrible inconceivable trategies generally have fuck all to lose and don't really care if they die or not, and in some cases even don't mind death and yearn for it. What's a worse punishment being injected whith chemicals and dying painlessly or being trapped in a prison forever haunted by the evil crime you committed and with the law of the prison reigning over you? If I committed such an evil act, I would prefer the death penalty.. its such an easy way out.. so why would you give it to them?
I do not support the death penalty in cases that are open to some conjecture. For instance, there's was a woman in Hobart who was found "guilty" of murdering her husband, but no body was ever found, no weapon (because no one could say exactly how the man died except that he disappeared off his yacht - he could be alive in the Bahamas for all we know), not all leads were followed up, and the prosecution failed to establish a reasonable motive.
But in cases where it is proven absolutely that the accused is a killer and a danger to society (not to mention a drain on the public purse by someone who has forfeited their right to live in society) then I'm all for it. For example, Julian Knight, Ivan Milat and Martin Bryant.
Once again.. why would you give them an easy way out?
Because they're wasting taxpayers money. Taxpayers money should be used for better reasons, than keeping lowlifes scum in prison.
-
I think that Capital punishment is in most cases useless.. since the people who commit these terrible inconceivable trategies generally have fuck all to lose and don't really care if they die or not, and in some cases even don't mind death and yearn for it. What's a worse punishment being injected whith chemicals and dying painlessly or being trapped in a prison forever haunted by the evil crime you committed and with the law of the prison reigning over you? If I committed such an evil act, I would prefer the death penalty.. its such an easy way out.. so why would you give it to them?
I do not support the death penalty in cases that are open to some conjecture. For instance, there's was a woman in Hobart who was found "guilty" of murdering her husband, but no body was ever found, no weapon (because no one could say exactly how the man died except that he disappeared off his yacht - he could be alive in the Bahamas for all we know), not all leads were followed up, and the prosecution failed to establish a reasonable motive.
But in cases where it is proven absolutely that the accused is a killer and a danger to society (not to mention a drain on the public purse by someone who has forfeited their right to live in society) then I'm all for it. For example, Julian Knight, Ivan Milat and Martin Bryant.
Once again.. why would you give them an easy way out?
Because they're wasting taxpayers money. Taxpayers money should be used for better reasons, than keeping lowlifes scum in prison.
I don't know what the exact figures are but people are talking about 1-10 million dollars for an execution?
Let's say there are 10 million tax payers in Australia.
Let's take the middle value.
$5 million divided by 10 million taxpayers is $0.50.
Now, let's calculate price of imprisonment.
100000 a year to keep someone in prison.
100000/10000000 = 1 cent a year per tax payer.
You could easily keep someone imprisoned for 40-45 years (which is a much better deterrent than them being executed and getting the "easy" way out) and spend less money.
Keep in mind that the 5 million could be as low as 1 million (probably not very likely) or as much as 10 million.
-
If they're planning to take their own life, I don't think any punishment is going to faze them
I highly doubt that 30+ years of incarceration, possibly in solitary confinement for a large proportion of that time with almost nothing to do but reflect over what they have done etcetera, wouldn't phase majority of people. These people who plan to take their lives succeeding the committal of their crime want to do so for a reason... To "leave" the world and escape any accountability for their actions. I think many people would think twice of they knew that there was no "easy" way out but had to endure their length sentence.
Erm...they're planning to take their own life. If you're going to be killing yourself after whatever crime you commit, you're certainly not going to be put off by whatever jail term you would theoretically get, so not offering them an 'easy way out' is pretty irrelevant. So yeah, that's not really going to faze them.
We're getting caught up in the wrong ideas though.. The aim of imprisonment is to rehabilitate as opposed to punishing an individual. Doesn't look like its working though, considering the recidivism rates in recent years...
The question was more about whether the death penalty can be justified for some crimes. Rehabilitation and return to society are key points, but typically they're not particularly important when you consider the crimes that normally attract the death penalty; it's rather difficult to assess the 'rehabilitation' of somebody who is a mass murderer etc. as opposed to misdemeanors/assaults etc.
he question I'd like to ask all of you, what's the point of doing it if its going to cost millions of dollars of tax payers' money?
So much of this money is because of bureaucracy though. If there's no way to make it feasible then there's no way to make it feasible, but as one of your articles points out, the last six years in California have been spent in court trying to decide whether lethal injection is legal. I think the economic impact is probably debatable, especially given a) America and b) so much misinformation
-
So much of this money is because of bureaucracy though. If there's no way to make it feasible then there's no way to make it feasible, but as one of your articles points out, the last six years in California have been spent in court trying to decide whether lethal injection is legal.
You mean legal fees? Because the legal system is very important right?
b) so much misinformation
Seen a documentary that says similar notions to the extreme costs, the internet also talks of the high economic costs, likewise states within America emulate what is said... Do you have any evidence to refute this or is this just biased opinion against America?
It's rather difficult to assess the 'rehabilitation' of somebody who is a mass murderer etc. as opposed to misdemeanors/assaults etc.
An eye for an eye, wonderful... So how do you intend to define what is a "mass murderer" and etc?
-
It's rather difficult to assess the 'rehabilitation' of somebody who is a mass murderer etc. as opposed to misdemeanors/assaults etc.
An eye for an eye, wonderful... So how do you intend to define what is a "mass murderer" and etc?
A mass murder would be the murder of many people. And I don't think Spice was really saying "Yeah let's get 'em", but more refuting the idea that you could rehabilitate an absolute psychopath as opposed to someone that maybe, mugged someone to support a drug habit who could be referred to the correct treatment.
-
What is exactly many, sir?
Suits, "The law is a very precise endeavor"
-
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/many
-
Good cop out, because if you cannot define mass murder, and what is mass, you have already failed 1/2 of the equation. Can't even draw the silver lining? Clearly status quo works then, or is the better alternative to your vague proposals.
-
Noun 1. mass murderer - a person who is responsible for the deaths of many victims in a single incident
Not a cop out. Ceebs typing something you could have googled if you didn't know what constituted many.
-
Noun 1. mass murderer - a person who is responsible for the deaths of many victims in a single incident
Not a cop out. Ceebs typing something you could have googled if you didn't know what constituted many.
I am trying to bring forth to you, is that all these notions can be easily exploited. What can constitute between bringing the line of murderer and mass-murderer in a legal system that is rigged by rhetoric battles and an unfair judicial system governed by money in a question that could decide capital punishment and life imprisonment.
Secondly, eye for an eye? Is that what your advocating?
Anyways, has anyone challenged the economic costs of it all to show that capital punishment outweighs current status quo, or other alternatives than capital punishment itself?
-
I am trying to bring forth to you, is that all these notions can be easily exploited. What can constitute between bringing the line of murderer and mass-murderer in a legal system that is rigged by rhetoric battles and an unfair judicial system governed by money in a question that could decide capital punishment and life imprisonment.
Secondly, eye for an eye? Is that what your advocating?
Anyways, has anyone challenged the economic costs of it all to show that capital punishment outweighs current status quo, or other alternatives than capital punishment itself?
Thankyou!
Well you'd assume there'd be a defining law if there were to be capital punishment for specific crimes such as mass murder. Maybe it would be set at four or more - who knows? Sometimes you probably wouldn't need a definition. I don't think anyone would disagree that Port Arthur was a mass murder.
And I'm not advocating anything. I haven't actually stated my viewpoint in this thread, I just decided to point out the out of context quote from Spice.
To answer your question - I don't think so. When I started the thread I didn't ask whether or not capital punishment was economically logical, I just asked whether or not people were for or against it.
-
In Singapore, attempting suicide is a crime, for which the maximum penalty is the death penalty, and yes, there has been someone who has been executed by the death penalty for attempting suicide.
-
In Singapore, attempting suicide is a crime, for which the maximum penalty is the death penalty, and yes, there has been someone who has been executed by the death penalty for attempting suicide.
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/175/315/PicardDoubleFacepalm-1.jpg?1316330080)
-
Personally I would not have anything against capital punishment if we were certain that the accused did commit the crime. However in many instances, the accused has been proven to be not guilty, but it's too late, as the accused has already been killed. In cases like these you question such a punishment that has the capacity to take an innocent individuals life. It can be too risky. Therefore based on this I am against capital punishment, regardless of the crime that has been committed.
-
In Singapore, attempting suicide is a crime, for which the maximum penalty is the death penalty, and yes, there has been someone who has been executed by the death penalty for attempting suicide.
Source? Because I'm calling bullshit.
I say source because the only information I can find about the death penalty and suicide is "Abetting the suicide of an 18 year old or an insane person"
-
Im personally not that for capital punishment, simply because you cant prove with certainty that someone is guilty of a crime and im just not a fan of killing people just as a general rule. ( not the best developed arguments but still) however if there were to be capital punishment, id defiantly prefer it to be nitrogen asphyxiation to lethal injection/ firing squad or whatever. some people say that the unplesentness in death will be a deterrent but i figure dying's probably enough in itself ::)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_asphyxiation
-
There is no real way to tell whether or not a person is 100% guilty. If this was possible than capital punishment would be a good idea. Sadly we can't be certain. If a person is not guilty of the crime and is killed that would be so sad.
-
If a person is not guilty of the crime than it is killed that would be so frustrating.
I just keep thinking of prison break!
-
I understand that this topic is slightly irrelevant now, but Brenden I'm interested in your concept of getting people to hell 'quicker.' I feel like applying worldly time to eternity, an unchanging limitless place is contradictory. Using the same logic, a 'good' person may commit suicide to get to heaven faster, and (assuming that both exist for the purpose of the argument) I don't think that in a location where time is ironically void by being so all consuming, ten to thirty years on Earth would be irrelevant :) Does that make sense? I'm pretty tired...
-
It makes sense, the use of getting to eternity quicker was a deliberate contradiction on my part haha :) Truthfully I wonder about some religious concepts that are better left for another thread haha.
-
Oh I seeeee, sorry my bad. :-[
-
Oh I seeeee, sorry my bad. :-[
Haha, don't worry, easy mistake to make - at least your reply was well reasoned!