Capital Punishment.

[brenden]

For or against? And don't forget to justify

[Surgeon]

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....

[brenden]

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?

[Surgeon]

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.

[brenden]

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.

[paulsterio]

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.

[Surgeon]

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.

[brenden]

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.

[Russ]

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

[Camo]

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.

[Russ]

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?

[Thu Thu Train]

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.

[binders]

**** 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/

[Surgeon]

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...

[Water]

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?