- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
visitor said:
And here is a study that claims the exact opposite of what you said
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~tonya/spring/cap/pro5.htm
The Capital Punishment Debate
- Thread starter Michael Dorosh
- Start date
And here is a study that claims the exact opposite of what you said
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~tonya/spring/cap/pro5.htm
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
No state, government or person has the right to take a life; to kill someone is wrong period. There is no reason for it. And thank god we live in a country where the majority thinks that way. We can chat about studies till the cows come home; killing a human being whether state sponsored or not is wrong.
Yes there are people who should be put away to protect society, se we need to have a sentence like life with no possibility of parole.
Yes there are people who should be put away to protect society, se we need to have a sentence like life with no possibility of parole.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Chop said:
In that case, please take the bulls**t out of your profile. We generaly don't like it when people fake their credentials.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
visitor said:
The reason it is more expensive to put someone to death by execution, over life in prison is simple. Its because the total cost includes appeals. Everytime they appeal the sentence, it costs tax payers money to pay for Judge, Lawyers, Jury, and everything else in an appeal. So numerous appeals add up, and costs quite a bit. But if they limited the time spent between trial and execution (eg. 12 months to 24 months), or limit the total number of appeals (three strikes and your out of luck, instead of the as many appeals as you can fit in till you die, as they have it now), it would be much cheaper to execute. Multiple appeals are only to seek a merciful judge who will change plea to a lesser sentence, instead of death. Most the time they are still guilty, just a lesser sentence. Then there is the cost of executing humanely All the techs, and cost new needles every time, cost of whats in the three needles (forget whats inside, but know what they do), cost of facilities to hold them for a long period of time until their sentence is carried out (US has long waiting list), cost of food and all the other stuff during the wait, cost of the funeral to be humanitarians. So all added up it will cost a whole lot. But there is several steps, and tons of items that can be skipped. So if its done right, it would be much cheaper. But its not, they take a simple thing, and complicate it. Also, did you happen to check how long they are kept on death row before executing? That adds up to total cost. Eliminate the wait and the cost would come down as well.
The way I figure it is if you have had three appeals, and your still convicted by a jury, and the judge still agrees with the death penalty, then in my books your already on the gallows, and are ready to drop. :blotto:
If the government were to keep alive a murderer, and he is released or escaped, and killed someone else. I would hold the government just as responsible as the murderer himself. To truly be a civil society, we must do what is necessary to protect the citizens of the society, and not the criminals out to destroy it. People that do crimes like the rest of them, deserve to have their funeral paid for, and carried out immediately. Alive or dead, as long as their buried deep (be cheaper too, wouldn't even have to build a gallows, or buy a rope).
Only joking about the burring then alive thing. After all it wouldn't be humane, after the murderer killed their victim humanely right?Robert
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Ghost778 said:
This is a poll of people on this sights thought, in Canada we revoked the penalty because most Canadians are against it and thank god for that, almost all of the free countries in the world have repealed the death penalty.
And shame on any country that does.
- Reaction score
- 4,965
- Points
- 1,060
Chop said:
No...most of the outspoken minority and the pandering politicos are against it. Like most everything else in this country, the silent majority do agree. It's a shame, they don't speak out, but that's it.
- Reaction score
- 4,965
- Points
- 1,060
Chop said:
He means that you claim to be an Infanteer. I'm sure you are. However, your stance as you stated earlier "to kill someone is wrong period. There is no reason for it. And thank god we live in a country where the majority thinks that way" puts you at odds with your raison d'être as an infanteer. You even expand it to say even state sanctioned killing is wrong and shouldn't happen, but you are sworn by oath to carry out these acts for your government should you be ordered. So what he's saying is you claim to be an infanteer, but if your beliefs won't allow you to do the job, your not and the info in your profile is false.
48H, did I get that right?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
recceguy said:
I did not join the military to kill people, I joined the army to make a difference in the world and help all people in the world enjoy the freedoms we as Canadians have here in Canada. And its a shame I have to answer to my profile to put in my two cents in a forum.
- Reaction score
- 4,965
- Points
- 1,060
Chop said:
While no sane person joins for that reason, it is the infanteer's forte. I would hope you could see the dilemma you pose for yourself.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 430
Chop said:
Chop said:
Chop,
You have made some valid posts regarding this subject, but, I am shocked how you would be surprised that you are questioned on your profile. As your profile states, you have served in the infantry, I assume, and are a jumper. These descriptions would offer any other member on this board that you would have a view that is a bit more, tough skinned if you will. You state that taking a life is wrong, period. True, but you must understand that with the little knowledge we have you and your life that you w ill have to expect someone questioning you.
So if you have a challenge with people questioning your profile, elaborate more, and we will know where you are coming from.
dileas
tess
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
48Highlander said:
He must be getting pretty aggrivated with you by now, so I'll try to explain what he means:
One of the arguments against capital punishment is that we may "execute an innocent person". The argument goes that, unless we can bring that person back to life, we shouldn't execute anyone.
Now, a similar analogy is one of war. You could also say that we should never kill anyone in war because we may accidentaly kill an innocent civilian. Therefore, unless we can bring that civilian back to life, we shouldn't be shooting at the enemy either.
In other words, neither position makes logical sense. Or, I suppose to the really messed-up tree-huggers, BOTH make perfect sense. Either way, you can't oppose the death penalty on those grounds, while supporting a nations right to go to war.
You get it now?
I'd be tempted to say that you've convinced me, as your argument seems to be pretty solid, and I can understand why you and others may be able to justify your opinons regarding this particular issue. And your confusion as to why I oppose your point of view is understandable in light of your reasons for support of the death penalty, especially since I've joined the CF as a member of the infantry and undoubtedly will be going to A'stan eventually.
However.....
I, personally, believe that there is a much higher degree of difference between the situations of combat and execution. Just because they have a single factor in common with each other (death), doesn't necessarily make them all that closely related.
In war, we use lethal force against those who would do the same to us. We do this because if we were to abandon our rifles and bombs, and instead adopt "less lethal" weapons, such as stun guns, our enemies aren't going to 'play fair' and lay down their rifles as well. The name of the game, so to speak, is Kill-or-be-Killed. As such, when civilians get caught in the crossfire, they get hurt, or killed.
In the 'fog of war' it's difficult to avoid such situations, though every effort is made to do so. But the luxury of being able to take one's time, and deliberate, each and every individual action that may or may not result in a mistake, does not exist. It's war, and it's a terrible thing, and mistakes result in the deaths of either your fellow soldiers or civilians, inaction is not an option. Action that results in accidents is unavoidable. I believe we've taken the route that leads down the path of the lesser of 2 evils. I don't lust for war, but I understand it's neccessity, and I believe that it should only be used as a tool to acheive an objective after all other viable alternatives have been exhausted.
Execution, on the other hand, is not a neccessity. We have viable alternatives, and the luxury of taking time and deliberating how much of what kind of time, with who may they interact/not interact with, in which kind of prison, and where. We aren't faced with the choice of 'kill or be killed.' If we deem them dangerous enough, we lock them away until the end of their natural lives, never to be free again (if you think men like Olson and Bernardo are ever going to be free, you're deluding yourself).
I think the death penalty satisfies some sort of visceral need for revenge, and serves no other purpose than that, and as such is not a moral, or ethical action to consider. We live in a progressive, and civil society, and if we are to remain so, we must abide by the values that we have set for ourselves. No society can safely entrust the enforcement of its laws to torture, brutality, or killing. Such methods are inherently cruel and will always mock the attempt to claok them in justice.
"The deliberate institutionalized taking of human life by the state is the greatest conceivable degradation to the dignity of the human personality." - American Supreme Court Justice Arthur J. Goldberg
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Opposition to the death penalty does not arise from misplaced sympathy for convicted murderers. On the contrary, murder demonstrates a lack of respect for human life. For this very reason, murder is abhorrent, and any policy of state-authorized killings is immoral.
Capital punishment denies due process of law. Its imposition is arbitrary and irrevocable. It forever deprives an individual of benefits of new evidence or new law that might warrant the reversal of a conviction or the setting aside of a death sentence.
Executions give society the unmistakable message that human life no longer deserves respect when it is useful to take it and that homicide is legitimate when deemed justified by pragmatic concerns.
Reliance on the death penalty obscures the true causes of crime and distracts attention from the social measures that effectively contribute to its control. Politicians who preach the desirability of executions as a weapon of crime control deceive the public and mask their own failure to support anti-crime measures that will really work.
Capital punishment wastes resources. It squanders the time and energy of courts, prosecuting attorneys, defense counsel, juries, and courtroom and correctional personnel. It unduly burdens the system of criminal justice, and it is therefore counterproductive as an instrument for society's control of violent crime. It epitomizes the tragic inefficacy and brutality of the resort to violence rather than reason for the solution of difficult social problems.
A decent and humane society does not deliberately kill human beings. An execution is a dramatic, public spectacle of official, violent homicide that teaches the permissibility of killing people to solve social problems -- the worst possible example to set for society. In this century, governments have too often attempted to justify their lethal fury by the benefits such killing would bring to the rest of society. The bloodshed is real and deeply destructive of the common decency of the community; the benefits are illusory.
- Hugo Adam Bedau
Food for thought, people.
Capital punishment denies due process of law. Its imposition is arbitrary and irrevocable. It forever deprives an individual of benefits of new evidence or new law that might warrant the reversal of a conviction or the setting aside of a death sentence.
Executions give society the unmistakable message that human life no longer deserves respect when it is useful to take it and that homicide is legitimate when deemed justified by pragmatic concerns.
Reliance on the death penalty obscures the true causes of crime and distracts attention from the social measures that effectively contribute to its control. Politicians who preach the desirability of executions as a weapon of crime control deceive the public and mask their own failure to support anti-crime measures that will really work.
Capital punishment wastes resources. It squanders the time and energy of courts, prosecuting attorneys, defense counsel, juries, and courtroom and correctional personnel. It unduly burdens the system of criminal justice, and it is therefore counterproductive as an instrument for society's control of violent crime. It epitomizes the tragic inefficacy and brutality of the resort to violence rather than reason for the solution of difficult social problems.
A decent and humane society does not deliberately kill human beings. An execution is a dramatic, public spectacle of official, violent homicide that teaches the permissibility of killing people to solve social problems -- the worst possible example to set for society. In this century, governments have too often attempted to justify their lethal fury by the benefits such killing would bring to the rest of society. The bloodshed is real and deeply destructive of the common decency of the community; the benefits are illusory.
- Hugo Adam Bedau
Food for thought, people.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
A cut from a paper by the same man.... It's long, but I think it drives home the point. Be warned: It's not pleasant, and if you have a weak constitution, you may wish to skip this particular post.
In 1983, the electrocution of John Evans in Alabama was described by an eyewitness as follows: "At 8:30 p.m. the first jolt of 1900 volts of electricity passed through Mr. Evans' body. It lasted thirty seconds. Sparks and flames erupted ... from the electrode tied to Mr. Evans' left leg. His body slammed against the straps holding him in the electric chair and his fist clenched permanently. The electrode apparently burst from the strap holding it in place. A large puff of grayish smoke and sparks poured out from under the hood that covered Mr. Evans' face. An overpowering stench of burnt flesh and clothing began pervading the witness room. Two doctors examined Mr. Evans and declared that he was not dead.
"The electrode on the left leg was refastened.... Mr. Evans was administered a second thirty second jolt of electricity. The stench of burning flesh was nauseating. More smoke emanated from his leg and head. Again, the doctors examined Mr. Evans. [They] reported that his heart was still beating, and that he was still alive. At that time, I asked the prison commissioner, who was communicating on an open telephone line to Governor George Wallace, to grant clemency on the grounds that Mr. Evans was being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. The request ... was denied.
"At 8:40 p.m., a third charge of electricity, thirty seconds in duration, was passed through Mr. Evans' body. At 8:44, the doctors pronounced him dead. The execution of John Evans took fourteen minutes."(38) Afterwards, officials were embarrassed by what one observer called the "barbaric ritual." The prison spokesman remarked, "This was supposed to be a very clean manner of administering death."(39)
An attempt to improve on electrocution was the gas chamber. The prisoner is strapped into a chair, a container of sulfuric acid underneath. The chamber is sealed, and cyanide is dropped into the acid to form lethal gas. Here is an account of the 1992 execution in Arizona of Don Harding, as reported in the dissent by U. S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens:
"When the fumes enveloped Don's head he took a quick breath. A few seconds later he again looked in my direction. His face was red and contorted as if he were attempting to fight through tremendous pain. His mouth was pursed shut and his jaw was clenched tight. Don then look several more quick gulps of the fumes.
"At this point Don's body started convulsing violently....His face and body fumed a deep red and the veins in his temple and neck began to bulge until I thought they might explode.
"After about a minute Don's face leaned partially forward, but he was still conscious. Every few seconds he continued to gulp in. He was shuddering uncontrollably and his body was racked with spasms. His head continued to snap back. His hands were clenched.
"After several more manuals, the most violent of the convulsions subsided. At this time the muscles along Don's left arm and back began twitching in a wavelike motion under his skin. Spittle drooled from his mouth.
"Don did not stop moving for approximately eight minutes, and after that he continued to twitch and jerk for another minute. Approximately two minutes later, we were told by a prison official that the execution was complete.
"Don Harding took ten minutes and thirty one seconds to die." (Gomez v. U.S. District Court, 112 S.Ct. 1652)
The latest mode of inflicting the death penalty, enacted into law by nearly two dozen states, is lethal injection, first used in Texas in 1982. It is easy to overstate the humaneness and efficacy of this method. There is no way of knowing that it is really painless. As the U.S. Court of Appeals observed, there is "substantial and uncontroverted evidence ... that execution by lethal injection poses a serious risk of cruel, protracted death.... Even a slight error in dosage or administration can leave a prisoner conscious but paralyzed while dying, a sentient witness of his or her own asphyxiation." (Chaney v. Heckler, 718 F.2d 1174 [1983])
In 1983, the electrocution of John Evans in Alabama was described by an eyewitness as follows: "At 8:30 p.m. the first jolt of 1900 volts of electricity passed through Mr. Evans' body. It lasted thirty seconds. Sparks and flames erupted ... from the electrode tied to Mr. Evans' left leg. His body slammed against the straps holding him in the electric chair and his fist clenched permanently. The electrode apparently burst from the strap holding it in place. A large puff of grayish smoke and sparks poured out from under the hood that covered Mr. Evans' face. An overpowering stench of burnt flesh and clothing began pervading the witness room. Two doctors examined Mr. Evans and declared that he was not dead.
"The electrode on the left leg was refastened.... Mr. Evans was administered a second thirty second jolt of electricity. The stench of burning flesh was nauseating. More smoke emanated from his leg and head. Again, the doctors examined Mr. Evans. [They] reported that his heart was still beating, and that he was still alive. At that time, I asked the prison commissioner, who was communicating on an open telephone line to Governor George Wallace, to grant clemency on the grounds that Mr. Evans was being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. The request ... was denied.
"At 8:40 p.m., a third charge of electricity, thirty seconds in duration, was passed through Mr. Evans' body. At 8:44, the doctors pronounced him dead. The execution of John Evans took fourteen minutes."(38) Afterwards, officials were embarrassed by what one observer called the "barbaric ritual." The prison spokesman remarked, "This was supposed to be a very clean manner of administering death."(39)
An attempt to improve on electrocution was the gas chamber. The prisoner is strapped into a chair, a container of sulfuric acid underneath. The chamber is sealed, and cyanide is dropped into the acid to form lethal gas. Here is an account of the 1992 execution in Arizona of Don Harding, as reported in the dissent by U. S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens:
"When the fumes enveloped Don's head he took a quick breath. A few seconds later he again looked in my direction. His face was red and contorted as if he were attempting to fight through tremendous pain. His mouth was pursed shut and his jaw was clenched tight. Don then look several more quick gulps of the fumes.
"At this point Don's body started convulsing violently....His face and body fumed a deep red and the veins in his temple and neck began to bulge until I thought they might explode.
"After about a minute Don's face leaned partially forward, but he was still conscious. Every few seconds he continued to gulp in. He was shuddering uncontrollably and his body was racked with spasms. His head continued to snap back. His hands were clenched.
"After several more manuals, the most violent of the convulsions subsided. At this time the muscles along Don's left arm and back began twitching in a wavelike motion under his skin. Spittle drooled from his mouth.
"Don did not stop moving for approximately eight minutes, and after that he continued to twitch and jerk for another minute. Approximately two minutes later, we were told by a prison official that the execution was complete.
"Don Harding took ten minutes and thirty one seconds to die." (Gomez v. U.S. District Court, 112 S.Ct. 1652)
The latest mode of inflicting the death penalty, enacted into law by nearly two dozen states, is lethal injection, first used in Texas in 1982. It is easy to overstate the humaneness and efficacy of this method. There is no way of knowing that it is really painless. As the U.S. Court of Appeals observed, there is "substantial and uncontroverted evidence ... that execution by lethal injection poses a serious risk of cruel, protracted death.... Even a slight error in dosage or administration can leave a prisoner conscious but paralyzed while dying, a sentient witness of his or her own asphyxiation." (Chaney v. Heckler, 718 F.2d 1174 [1983])
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 230
If it were my daughter, son or wife that had been sodomized, beaten, raped held in squalor for days on end while all the aforementioned things had been done to them, the above instance would not have bothered me in the least.
:bullet: cheaper and quicker.
:bullet: cheaper and quicker.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
recceguy said:
You got the gyst of it, but not the details. Not only does he use the infantry symbol as his avatar, his profile claims that he is a 50 year old male with 13 years in the airborne. And that sort of misrepresentation realy makes me want to rearrange his kneecaps.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,795
- Points
- 1,160
And thats why I never put much weight on studies, especially ones on the internet. Like Go proves, it's all too easy to find a study supporting your argument. Their biased.
You don't have to put anything in your profile to contribute to this site. Many don't.
*IF* You put military credentials in there and other soldiers on this site get a little suspicious their going to call you on it. Why? It's how we stop posers and fakes from spreading bullshit here. If we're wrong we're wrong, don't take it personally.
I'm practically in the same boat as you. I believe all life is sacred and we should only take life with great reverence. An Iraqi citizen is just as important to me as a Canadian or American one. I think murderers should be executed only when it's apparent that they will continue to be a threat to society. That said I still find your opinion on killing in society and how utterly wrong it is very weird taking into consideration your age and military service. Your comming across in a very funky way.
Great argument Dog. I don't agree with it but I do see what point your making. We won't be able to agree because of the perspective we're looking at this. I'm just much more comfortable with a convicted murderer (as proven by DNA and video tape) being put to death than a civilian by accident. Yes the civilian was an accident and they were not intentionally targeted so maybe it's not even the same argument. We kill a dog that's ripped a little girls face off, why we don't do the same for a human (who I hold to a much higher standard than a dog) I'll never understand.
Jarnhamar
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 5,795
- Points
- 1,160
Considering who the majority of posters on this site I don't think you'll find much sympathy for criminals and monsters.
You think articles are unpleasant? Some of the BTDT types who post on this board have seen what those monsters can do in person.
I've only heard stories. Still, no sympathy from me.
A few executions are a little more violent or painful than others. All I can say is this
fuck em if they can't take a joke
You think articles are unpleasant? Some of the BTDT types who post on this board have seen what those monsters can do in person.
I've only heard stories. Still, no sympathy from me.
A few executions are a little more violent or painful than others. All I can say is this
fuck em if they can't take a joke
