Printable View
Hiya Fellow Macroers,
Well, We Had This Topic At School Not Long Ago And The Debate Wasn't Very
Successful. I'd Just Like To Know What Everyone Thinks Of Capital Punishment.
Is It Fair? Are There Any Other Ways To Punish People? If So, What Kinds Of Ways? Instead Of Them Doing The Crime Then Being Punished, Is There A Way To Make Them Not Commit A Capital Crime In The First Place?
P.S - Capital Punishment Is Like Hanging, Being Beheaded, Etc.
P.P.S - How Do I Make A Poll?
~Clause
To make a pole, edit your post and scroll down to additional options. And I don't get what you are voting on in this topic? please explain more :D
Well if you murder or something then you deserve to be killed.. thats how i think of it.
deja vu!
i just had this debate in my english class...
too bad i didnt give a thought into but i'd say...
yes kill kill kill!
they deserved it if they did it
No! You never know when you might need to kill someone!
wtf?!Quote:
Originally Posted by b4light
did you even read the first post!?
Apparently Not. Legendary, Why Exactly Did You Have To Make Your Post So Long...Lol...?
Who are we to judge whether someone has the right to live or not? God has command over that, not us.
I think it depends.
If the person is an ongoing threat to national/global security, then you'd better get rid of them. better safe than sorry.
Lock everyone else up for life.
I think you SantaClause should have somekind of punishment, for Capsing Every Word Like This. It's not cool you know.:(
And What Makes You Say It's Not Cool Secet. It Might Be A Bit Annoying...I'm With You On That One...But If It's Too Annoying For Your Liking Then Please Don't Say I Should Be Punished.
In highschool we had a debate about this, I was against. I did the ole Columbo playing dumb asking questions politely bit. I asked them, why are these people being executed? Because they deserve to be punished. Why? Because they did something wrong. What did they do? The murdered. So? Killing is bad. AHA! Thank you very much, come and sit on this side, we got a spare seat, welcome to the team!
Lol, she said, 'that's not fair, you tricked me!' hahaha.
Edit: Jason VV I made her say that killing is bad.
I'm afarid I don't get it, Boreas. How did you trick her?
I got it Boreas, that's funny.
I also had a debate in class about the same sort of topic in response to "The Penal Colony" I think that obviously it stops the person from recommiting the same crime but they dont learn anything from it cause they're dead. So Im kind of undecided. In truth, I would take everything into consideration and then make my decision.
Haha that was really owned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
By Asking Her A Few Questions, He Proved To Her That Killing Was Wrong...As That Is What His Defendant Was Being Convicted For.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason2gs
Based On This, He Proved That Since Killing Was Wrong, And Capital Punishment Included Killing, Then Capital Punishment Was Wrong...
The idea of killing is bad also brings up another question: the killing of what is wrong?
I don't know about you, but i've killed a lot of animals in my life: squirrels, rabbits, deer, etc... Should someone be tried for murder for those killings?
My point is that "murder" is defined by society, therefore it makes it non-existent because it is the product of our minds, it is not a tangible object that we can touch and observe. Therefore if murder is not real, how can we try for it and convict someone of it and then put them to death for it?
Seems like capital punishment is murder itself.
agreed. killers deserve to dieQuote:
Originally Posted by ~alex~
by being killed by more killers?Quote:
Originally Posted by oliver1205
Ahh, got it ;)
*understands*
Let's take a look at the ole' Bible once more ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pluth
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Bible
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
What's the difference between a government and just a regular person?
i still believe that if you killed someone for any other reason other than in self-defense, then you deserved to be killed in the same way...
but its all situational
if you kill someone in a time of peace, your a murderer and should be sent to Death Row!
if you killed someone in a time of war, your protecting your nation...:confused: so there are lots of factors that play into this.
but if you killed someone for apparently no reason at all... then i believe you should be killed the same exact way!
:stirthepot: :f: :sasmokin: :D
*grins*
Ok. Then what happens to the one who killed the guy you think deserves to be sent to Death Row? Should he be sent to Death Row as well? Then what?
His job is to flick the switch, give the injection / or whatever way they do it. Hes doing it for his countryQuote:
Originally Posted by Jason2gs
How is flicking a switch any different than pulling a trigger? And he's doing it for his country, you say? Well that's just great, now my country has to be arrested for murder :rolleyes:
This Topic Obviously Brings Up Many Speculations...I Wonder If We'll Ever Have The Same Opinion As Each Other...:rolleyes:
this is one of my undecided topics, right now, im for it, but that sometimes changes,
i dont think Ian Huntly should evade the firing squad,
i would like to see Marc Dutroux's head fly
i would want to see Slobodan Milosevic swinging from the rafters, and his bloated body cut down to be fed to prison pigs, after the Srebrenica Genocide
id happily see Jaska Cvik riding the lightning, i couldnt find the good picture, so make do with that link
heres my reasons,
every time you take a breath, thousands of others are taking their last, death is everywhere, it cannot be measured, most people's symbol of the world is green leaves and rainforests. Mine is a black, dark, hooded character wielding a scythe...
one or two more deaths makes no differance to the whole model, but to the people involves, the criminals, it makes all the differance in the world, their brain chemicals will cause them the feeling of fear, suffering and pain.
this is no less than they deserve,
thank you for listening to my lecture (yes it is a lecture)
Nice Way To Be Smart Yak, But We Didn't Listen To Your Lecture...We Read It...;)
well you probably wont belive me when i say this, but i meant to write 'listen' not 'read', it paints the picture of you all listening to me and im standing on a rock shouting my message to the masses :D
what do you mean 'Nice Way To Be Smart', i was just saying my opinion,
and i dont like it that this thread has gone dead, (no pun intended), c'mon guys, lets have a good argument!!. :D
Ok Yakman... if thats what you want :)
(I love this kind of thing....)
I disagree. Capital punishment is wrong. Death is a terrible thing, and no matter what a person has done, they deserve not to die....but to be put in jail. I don't care what you d to em in there....just keep it semi - humane and don't kill them
i don't think Ian Huntly should evade a cold, damp jail cell,
i would like to see Marc Dutroux's body be thrown in a prison were they are hardly fed, i would want to see Slobodan Milosevic dressed in stripes and subject to full body cavity searches every day, after the Srebrenica Genocide
id happily see Jaska Cvik behind bars, i couldnt find the good picture, so make do with that link
Time To Bring Out The Big Guns...I Couldn't Type Every Letter In Caps...Too Tiring...:p
Capital punishment is a subject you can always count on for a lively discussion with plenty of opinions and lots of questions. Capital Punishment is a term which indicates muddled thinking. The dilemma of kill or be killed, which confronts civilized society daily and inexorably, is bedeviled by the jumble of panic, superstition, and angry resentment we call punishment, expiation, propitiatory blood sacrifice, justice, and many other imposing names.
The dilemma is a hard fact which must be faced and organized. (1) In today's world, terrible crimes are being committed daily. Many believe that these criminals deserve one fate: death. Capital punishment, the death penalty, is the maximum penalty used in punishing people who kill another human being - and is a very controversial method of punishment.
Criminals guilty of murder receive a verdict of capital punishment. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with an intentional or criminal intent.
First-degree murder is usually premeditated or by deliberate design. In most states, a person convicted of first-degree murder can be sentenced to the death penalty.
Debate over the merits of capital punishment continues on a daily basis. Proponents of capital punishment defend it mainly on two grounds: death is a fitting punishment for murder, and executions maximize public safety through incapacitation and deterrence.
Capital punishment is meant to be a deterrent to crime, specifically murder. Gordon Tullock, of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, states: Eighty percent of the people who seriously think about crime think of punishment as a deterrent - except for the sociologists, and they wrote all the textbooks.
(2) According to statistics, for each execution there are 50 murders averted. This was documented in the U.S. between the years 1967 - 1984.
(3) Murders began to rise during the years that capital punishment was not
allowed while states were reinstating new guidelines. Edward Koch, former mayor of New York City, said: Had the death penalty been a real possibility in the minds of ...murderers, they might well have stayed their hand. They might have shown moral awareness before their victims died...Consider the tragic death of Rosa Velez, who happened to be home when a man named Luis Vera burglarized her apartment in Brooklyn.
Yeah, I shot her, Vera admitted. ...And I knew I wouldn't go to the chair. The difference between murder and execution, or between kidnapping and imprisonment, is that the first is unlawful and undeserved, the second a lawful and deserved punishment for an unlawful act. The physical similarities of the punishment to the crime are irrelevant. The relevant difference is not physical, but social.
(4) A value on human life is placed by capital punishment. That value says, in essence, If you take a life, yours will be forfeited. But, man did not originate the concept of capital punishment. God originated capital punishment. The Book of Mormon, Nephi 9: 35 states, a murderer who deliberately kills shall die. Alma 1: 13-14 states, Nehor condemned to die because he shed blood of righteous man; 1: 18 (30: 10), he who murders is punished unto death; 34: 12, law requires the life of him who has murdered The Doctrine and Covenants of the Book of Mormon state in Chapter 42: 19, he who kills shall die; Chapter 42: 79, those who kill will be delivered to law of land.
These are all descriptive of the words capital punishment. On the view of murder the Book of Mormon states in Nephi Chapter 9: 35, woe unto murder
who deliberately kills. In Mosiah 2: 13, the Lord commands that men should not murder. In Alma 30: 10 (34: 12) if a man murder, he was punished unto death. In Alma 42: 19, if no law was given, would a man fear he would die if he murder? In the Doctrine and Covenants, Chapter 42: 79, any who kill shall be delivered up to laws of land.
The Bible states in Exodus 10: 13, Thou shall not MURDER. (This is the translation taken directly from the original Hebrew version.) And murder is defined in any dictionary as the UNLAWFUL killing of a person with malice and aforethought. John 8:7, Let he among you who is without sin, cast the first stone. Matthew 7:1 states, Judge not, that you be not judged.
Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. -Matthew 5: 17-19.
There are many quotes from the Bible that state that the religious should be in favor of the death penalty. One of these in Revelations 13: 9-10 states, He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity; he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
Certainly, capital punishment shouldn't be promoted as a deterrent to murder. The people who commit atrocities often say they already feel dead inside. They don't give a damn about consequences. Plus, if they were acting rationally, so as to be able to weigh such things as consequences, they probably wouldn't be going around committing atrocities in the first place. No, people who commit these kinds of crimes are going to commit them no matter what society threatens to do about it. This is perhaps another reason for why we SHOULD have the death penalty.
These people are damaged beyond repair-as a matter of sheer practicality, society needs to take them out of circulation.
(5) Those against capital punishment state that society cannot allow brutalities of criminal violence to set limits of appropriate punishment. According to opponents, premeditated murder by the state is wrong. Abolitionist use the quote, Judge not, that you be not judged to say the death penalty goes against the Christian values since we have to judge to sentence someone to death. Many will refuse to sit on juries that may have to enforce the death penalty as a maximum penalty for the crime committed.
But, if you look at the entire picture of what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5: 17-19, we find that Jesus was speaking to the hypocrite. For example, if I cheat, and I see someone else cheating, I cannot judge him or her for cheating. I would be a hypocrite. First, I myself must stop cheating before I could judge the other person.
That is called judging in a fair manner, and not being hypocritical. Christians should take the entire scope of the Bible into account when they quote certain passages lest they make the passage look like a hypothetical contradiction.
There is a popular saying that only God has the right to take the life of a human being. But, nowhere in the Bible does this statement meet confirmation. God states in Genesis 9: 6, Whoever sheds Man's blood, by Man his blood shall be shed. He also states in Numbers 35: 31, Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall be surely put to death.
People against the death penalty will argue that it's cheaper to keep murderers out of circulation by putting them in jail than by putting them to death. Well, this argument is well taken. Steps need to be taken to make capital punishment less expensive!
The best argument against capital punishment, though, is that of responsibility. Society creates these killers and the conditions within which they operate, and it's a serious shirking of responsibility for society to turn around and heartlessly dispose of the bad people it produces.
I agree that as a society we cannot look to capital punishment as a cure, or
even a treatment, for the evils we've generated. The death penalty is a consequence, a just reward, and nothing more. If there is a cure for murderers and rapists, and really criminals of any degree, it is to make sure that every child grows up in a loving and disciplined environment. We must never confuse these issues.
The moral argument against capital punishment has not been effective in the United States despite the biblical injunction against killing. Religious supporters of capital punishment often invoke a presumed distinction between killing and murdering, and avow that God forbade the latter but not the former. Self-defense and just wars are cited as cases of morally justified killing. When cases of justified killing in self-defense or just wars are altered to include an element of delay, disarming, and premeditation, they too become murder.
Since capital punishment clearly involves the elements of delay, disarming, and premeditation, capital punishment is murder in the biblical sense and
ought to be abolished in any God-fearing society.
(6) Capital punishment should be abolished in this country because it is archaic and cruel. There are thousands of men and women on death row in this country awaiting execution.
Capital punishment seems to be a political agenda and not the will of the public. Politicians have excited the public into frenzy, expounding that the death penalty must exist and be applied.
Politicians have stated it is deterrence. It has never been proven to be a deterring factor. Virtually every study has reached the result that capital punishment has no deterrent effect. Retribution is not constitutional according to our laws.
(7) In earlier times -where capital punishment was common, the value of life was less, and societies were more barbaric - capital punishment was probably quite acceptable. However, in today's society, which is becoming ever more increasingly humanitarian, and individual rights and due process of justice are held in high accord, the death penalty is becoming an unrealistic form of punishment.
Also, with the ever-present possibility of mistaken execution, there will remain the question of innocence of those put to death. Finally, man is not a divine being. He does not have the right to inflict mortal punishment in the name of society's welfare, when there are suitable substitutes that require fewer resources. I ask society, .... why don't we stop the killing?
(8) The argument of proponents is best summed up in this quote from a senator who spoke anonymously: Opponents equate execution and murder, believing that if two acts have the same ending or result, then those two acts are morally equivalent. This is a morally untenable position. Is the legal taking of property to satisfy a debt the same as auto theft? Both result in loss of property. Are kidnapping and legal incarceration the same?
Both involve imprisonment against one's will. Is killing in self-defense the same as capital murder? Both end in taking human life. Is rape and making love the same? Both may result in sexual intercourse. How absurd? Opponents' flawed logic and moral confusion mirror their factual arguments - there is, often, an absence of reality. The moral confusion of some opponents is astounding. Some equate the American death penalty with the Nazi holocaust. Opponents see no moral distinction between the slaughter of 12 million totally innocent men, women and children and the just execution of society's worst human rights violators (DP.com, WWW).
Nineteenth-century English philosopher and reformer John Stuart Mill, stated:
Does fining a criminal show want of respect for property, or imprisoning him, for personal freedom? Just as unreasonable it is to think that to take the life of a man who has taken that of another is to show want of regard for human life. We show, on the contrary...our regard for it, by the adoption of a rule that he who violates that right in another forfeits it for himself and that while no other crime that he can commit deprives him of his right to live, this shall.
Syndicated columnist Charley Reese made an interesting analogy while criticizing the way abolitionists typically behave when he wrote: When I think of all the sweet, innocent people who suffer extreme pain and who dies every
day in this country, then the outpouring of sympathy for cold-blooded killers enrages me.
Where is your sympathy for the good, the kind and the innocent? This fixation on murderers is a sickness, a putrefaction of the soul. It's the equivalent of someone spending all day mooning and cooing over a handful of human feces---sick and abnormal. I favor a fair trial, one quick appeal and prompt execution.
I don't think murderers ought to live much beyond 12 months from the day their victim is buried...(and) As for not being able to correct a mistake, so what? Virtually all-accidental deaths are deaths by mistake.
Why impose a standard of perfection only on the criminal justice system? There are no perfect human institutions. Our system is, more than any other, designed to protect the rights of the defendant. The chance of a truly innocent person being executed is exceedingly slim. But, if it happens, it happens just as things happen to people every day. Laws gentle are seldom obeyed; too severe seldom executed.
(9) Personally, as for convicted criminals, I see no wrong in imprisonment; or, for that matter, corporal punishment, including putting the criminal, in certain circumstances, to death. What I do take objection to, is being a victim to criminals. Aside from taking all the personal steps I can, to lessen my risk of being a victim of a criminal - I would like to live in a community which takes a full set of steps to discourage criminal activity.
Punishment is a one of these steps. As for capital punishment: I take the moral high ground: life is precious. However, that precious life is no reason to object to capital punishment, - indeed, this is the primary justification for capital punishment. A legitimate use of punishment is its use as a deterrent: so too, it is a legitimate use to satisfy the need, which the victim and his family have for retribution.
Thus, in this question of capital punishment, both deterrence and retribution play a role; but there is an additional reason: to permanently rid ourselves of murderers.
Capital punishment must be the standard by which each and every state must abide by. If we cannot join together and defeat crime, it will most certainly take us over. We can no longer sit and let our lives be terrorized. No longer can we sit back and watch criminals be released and then kill again. No longer must we draw the line on crime. We must make the world safe so that our children and we may once again live in a world without the fear of being senselessly killed or losing our loved ones. For a cold-blooded killer, capital punishment is the only true justice.
In closing, let me say, after much study for and against, capital punishment is a hot topic of debate, a debate that reaches far back into history. In a moral perspective, abolitionists have a very strong case, but proponents have the stronger legal and fact-based case.
Debate on capital punishment, and its constitutionality will rage unabated, with no foreseeable conclusion.
If you didn't write that yourself, you should always give the source.
Well...yeah, um, wanna break that down for us?
but on a argumentative note :
An eye for an eye, and we'd all go blind
~ Someone
An eye for an eye, and we'd all go blind
~ Mahatma Gandhi (sp?)
iv read all his post, he basicly gives a lot of quotes from the bible and ends by saying he is for capital punishment, but it is a dull read, i hope i never study you at school :p
Lmfao...Secet...What Makes You Think I Didn't Write It?
SantaClause (AKA SCAMMER!!!) you don't ever type like that and it doesn't look professional so why do it? :S Plus I reckon it should be allowed because it would stop people from doing things bad. Although I think its a quick and easy why out of your problems I think they should cut theirs Balls off and dip them in salt! then give them medication to fix it but no pain killers then do it again! After thats done They should feed them little bits of food everyday so they are near stravng but still alive so they feel total wierd then cut thier head off with a blunt knife! (thats only for really bad things obviously)
Yeah, i think it was Gahndi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yakman
....oh great...
a moron who thinks he can take quotes from the Bible and support capital punishment....
Let's not bring the middle age again.
Only if the person had complete and 100% proof... you don't wanna be hung or anything if you didn't do it =P
-Harry
Wtf...How Am I A Scammer...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aidan
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind
-Ghandi (did i spell it right rofl?)
Edit: aw darn i just saw some1 put the eye for an eye but mines more accurate!!!