If you support the death penalty, tell me why now please!!!!

I don't agree with the death penalty. It is a brutal response to a problem that is as much the result of the faults of society as it is the faults of the convicted individuals. We spend far too much time thinking about how we should punish criminals and not nearly enough time thinking about how we can prevent them from becoming criminals in the first place.

The death penalty is all about fear - and that's not a particularly good motivator when it comes to controlling peoples' violent tendencies. Teaching respect for human life is a much better way to accomplish this, and that responsibility lies primarily with parents and, to a lesser extent, teachers. If we want to address crime, we should be stricter when it comes to training parents to take care of their children properly.

I don't agree with the death penalty. It is a brutal response to a problem that is as much the result of the faults of society as it is the faults of the convicted individuals. We spend far too much time thinking about how we should punish criminals and not nearly enough time thinking about how we can prevent them from becoming criminals in the first place.

 

The death penalty is all about fear - and that's not a particularly good motivator when it comes to controlling peoples' violent tendencies. Teaching respect for human life is a much better way to accomplish this, and that responsibility lies primarily with parents and, to a lesser extent, teachers. If we want to address crime, we should be stricter when it comes to training parents to take care of their children properly.

pianist

I don't agree with the death penalty. It is a brutal response to a problem that is as much the result of the faults of society as it is the faults of the convicted individuals. We spend far too much time thinking about how we should punish criminals and not nearly enough time thinking about how we can prevent them from becoming criminals in the first place.

 

The death penalty is all about fear - and that's not a particularly good motivator when it comes to controlling peoples' violent tendencies. Teaching respect for human life is a much better way to accomplish this, and that responsibility lies primarily with parents and, to a lesser extent, teachers. If we want to address crime, we should be stricter when it comes to training parents to take care of their children properly.

pianist

[QUOTE="pianist"]

I don't agree with the death penalty. It is a brutal response to a problem that is as much the result of the faults of society as it is the faults of the convicted individuals. We spend far too much time thinking about how we should punish criminals and not nearly enough time thinking about how we can prevent them from becoming criminals in the first place.

 

The death penalty is all about fear - and that's not a particularly good motivator when it comes to controlling peoples' violent tendencies. Teaching respect for human life is a much better way to accomplish this, and that responsibility lies primarily with parents and, to a lesser extent, teachers. If we want to address crime, we should be stricter when it comes to training parents to take care of their children properly.

yoshi-lnex

... and more importantly it shows that a violent response was required to subdue a violent response that could have probably been prevented. I believe some people are more prone to violent tendencies than others, but I do not for a minute believe that anyone, given the proper upbringing, is 'destined' to become a violent criminal.

... and more importantly it shows that a violent response was required to subdue a violent response that could have probably been prevented. I believe some people are more prone to violent tendencies than others, but I do not for a minute believe that anyone, given the proper upbringing, is 'destined' to become a violent criminal.

pianist

you might be right...but i'm not too certain on that considering the brain...for instance look at certain serial killers who may have had potentially good lives. the brain is a tricky thing as you may well know. it overrides the upbringing sometimes. take homosexuals for instance (considering one believes that it's nature not nurture).

[QUOTE="pianist"]

I don't agree with the death penalty. It is a brutal response to a problem that is as much the result of the faults of society as it is the faults of the convicted individuals. We spend far too much time thinking about how we should punish criminals and not nearly enough time thinking about how we can prevent them from becoming criminals in the first place.

 

The death penalty is all about fear - and that's not a particularly good motivator when it comes to controlling peoples' violent tendencies. Teaching respect for human life is a much better way to accomplish this, and that responsibility lies primarily with parents and, to a lesser extent, teachers. If we want to address crime, we should be stricter when it comes to training parents to take care of their children properly.

Trashface

I'm stating that the nature of society is conducive to developing violent impulses, yes. You probably don't realize how fortunate you are to have overcome your personal abuse - there are many who are not nearly so fortunate, and it drives them to make poor choices in life, which often leads to crime.

People aren't born criminals. They resort to crime, and even find it to be an acceptable response to a situation, because it's all they know. Provided with proper education and care in their youth, this is very unlikely to happen.

My mindset is not dangerous. Yours is far more dangerous than mine. I have observed your contributions to this thread, and believe that you have remarkably short-sighted views with respect to the nature of crime and how it should be addressed. You focus solely on punishing people. You maintain that only they are responsible for their behavior, and in so doing completely ignore the root causes of crime. I would much rather tackle crime by addressing its roots than simply react to crimes after they have occurred.  It's not like killing the criminal is going to change the fact that the crime happened.  If it goes that far, you've failed in the battle against crime.

[QUOTE="pianist"]

... and more importantly it shows that a violent response was required to subdue a violent response that could have probably been prevented. I believe some people are more prone to violent tendencies than others, but I do not for a minute believe that anyone, given the proper upbringing, is 'destined' to become a violent criminal.

NathanHawkins

you might be right...but i'm not too certain on that considering the brain...for instance look at certain serial killers who may have had potentially good lives. the brain is a tricky thing as you may well know. it overrides the upbringing sometimes. take homosexuals for instance (considering one believes that it's nature not nurture).

I agree to an extent... but if what you say is true, we might as well scan infants' brains immediately after birth and do away with them as soon as they're born. I still don't believe anybody is born a killer... and if people are born with exceedingly violent tendencies, they should be recognized and addressed long before the person commits a violent act.

I agree fo an extent... but if what you say is true, we might as well scan infants' brains immediately after birth and do away with them as soon as they're born. I still don't believe anybody is born a killer... and if people are born with exceedingly violent tendencies, they should be recognized and addressed long before the person commits a violent act.

pianist

perhaps.  i of course disagree with that idea as you and most certainly the majority of us do.  the born killer idea is what i question...not that i necessarily believe it.  i do consider honestly that potentiality and think that it's notable.  we may agree mutually more than apparently realized. 

Because of people who make certain threads on OT. Seriously though...if someone rapes a little girl or boy...I don't care how much they supposedly change...they're still that person who rapes little kids. People can only change so much and completely changing your ability to not do something completely heinous...I don't think it's really possible and I wouldn't want someone I cared about to be their next victim when they snap again.Sunsha

The sad and ironic thing is that the person who rapes little boys and girls is usually a product of childhood neglect/abuse. We kill these people to protect little children after the fact, and more or less ignore the factors that led a little child to grow into a rapist.

 Also... LOL at your opening line.  That may sway my opinion on the matter.  :P

The sad and ironic thing is that the person who rapes little boys and girls is usually a product of childhood neglect/abuse. We kill these people to protect little children after the fact, and more or less ignore the factors that led a little child to become a child raper.pianist

[QUOTE="pianist"]The sad and ironic thing is that the person who rapes little boys and girls is usually a product of childhood neglect/abuse. We kill these people to protect little children after the fact, and more or less ignore the factors that led a little child to become a child raper.Sunsha

This is true... but is it justifiable? Or should there be a degree of mercy applied to those who were subjected to abuse? Life in prison strikes me as a far more justifiable punishment. It demonstrates a shade of leniency and compassion while at the same time ensuring that the rapist is no longer a danger to society.

EDIT - I'm sorry to hear that, but again, not everyone can be expected to deal with neglect and abuse in a constructive manner.  The right combination of factors can very easily turn a normal person into criminal.  I suspect that the strength of your personality and your intelligence were powerful assets in resisting these factors.

This is true... but is it justifiable? Or should there be a degree of mercy applied to those who were subjected to abuse? Life in prison strikes me as a far more justifiable punishment. It demonstrates a shade of leniency and compassion while at the same time ensuring that the rapist is no longer a danger to society.pianist

[QUOTE="pianist"]This is true... but is it justifiable? Or should there be a degree of mercy applied to those who were subjected to abuse? Life in prison strikes me as a far more justifiable punishment. It demonstrates a shade of leniency and compassion while at the same time ensuring that the rapist is no longer a danger to society.Sunsha

How common is it for a person to escape from a life imprisonment situation, and even if they do, how frequently do they remain at large for more than a couple of days? The number of inmates who escape prison would probably be so close to 0% that it would be considered statistically impossible, and those who are labelled dangerous offenders and placed in maximum security facilities have even slimmer chances of escape.

 I responded to your abuse remark in an edit to my original post... and now, I must do something I should have done more than an hour and a half ago - go to bed. Stupid interesting debates. :P

i dont support the death penalty but if i was to spend 30 years in prison i would rather die than spend that long in prison. death is not the worst thing that can happen to a personAcidJiles

just on that...i wonder if you would change your mind if faced with the situation. nearly no one has chosen that option when faced with the decision. suicides based on those instances have occured, but that's not the typical (if somewhat reasonably not next to considerable) actionable response considering the number of death row inmates.

[QUOTE="Trashface"][QUOTE="pianist"]

I don't agree with the death penalty. It is a brutal response to a problem that is as much the result of the faults of society as it is the faults of the convicted individuals. We spend far too much time thinking about how we should punish criminals and not nearly enough time thinking about how we can prevent them from becoming criminals in the first place.

 

The death penalty is all about fear - and that's not a particularly good motivator when it comes to controlling peoples' violent tendencies. Teaching respect for human life is a much better way to accomplish this, and that responsibility lies primarily with parents and, to a lesser extent, teachers. If we want to address crime, we should be stricter when it comes to training parents to take care of their children properly.

pianist

I'm stating that the nature of society is conducive to developing violent impulses, yes. You probably don't realize how fortunate you are to have overcome your personal abuse - there are many who are not nearly so fortunate, and it drives them to make poor choices in life, which often leads to crime.

People aren't born criminals. They resort to crime, and even find it to be an acceptable response to a situation, because it's all they know. Provided with proper education and care in their youth, this is very unlikely to happen.

My mindset is not dangerous. Yours is far more dangerous than mine. I have observed your contributions to this thread, and believe that you have remarkably short-sighted views with respect to the nature of crime and how it should be addressed. You focus solely on punishing people. You maintain that only they are responsible for their behavior, and in so doing completely ignore the root causes of crime. I would much rather tackle crime by addressing its roots than simply react to crimes after they have occurred.  It's not like killing the criminal is going to change the fact that the crime happened.  If it goes that far, you've failed in the battle against crime.

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="pianist"]

I don't agree with the death penalty. It is a brutal response to a problem that is as much the result of the faults of society as it is the faults of the convicted individuals. We spend far too much time thinking about how we should punish criminals and not nearly enough time thinking about how we can prevent them from becoming criminals in the first place.

 

The death penalty is all about fear - and that's not a particularly good motivator when it comes to controlling peoples' violent tendencies. Teaching respect for human life is a much better way to accomplish this, and that responsibility lies primarily with parents and, to a lesser extent, teachers. If we want to address crime, we should be stricter when it comes to training parents to take care of their children properly.

pianist

... and more importantly it shows that a violent response was required to subdue a violent response that could have probably been prevented. I believe some people are more prone to violent tendencies than others, but I do not for a minute believe that anyone, given the proper upbringing, is 'destined' to become a violent criminal.

[QUOTE="romocop33"]the fact that the criminal justice system is racist and the death penalty is applied unequally should be enough to convince you that it should be abolished.sHaDyCuBe321

I don't recall saying it was common...I said it could happen and I don't believe it right to allow for the chance to ever happen. Why should they be allowed to live anyway? Sunsha

Going to such measures to prevent an act that is nearly impossible as it stands is overkill as far as I'm concerned. Justifiably, I wouldn't have much support if I argued that we should kill anyone who drinks an excessive amount of alcohol and owns an automobile, or who has been convicted of drunk driving, because there is a chance that they could be involved in an accident in the future. I don't have the stats, but I'd wager you're more likely to be harmed by a drunk driver in your life than by a criminal who has escaped prison.

As to the question "why should they be allowed to live?" I often find myself asking that when I read about the heinous things some people do. And I always remember the answer - because I am not like that. I do not believe that hurting or killing someone for revenge is justifiable. It is brutal, and it is exactly what we despise in violent criminals to begin with. What good has ever come as a direct result of the desire for revenge?

What good do they do to remain alive wasting money while they contribute nothing worth while to society? Sunsha

This is not a very convincing argument for capital punishment, because criminals are not the only people who waste money and contribute nothing worthwhile to society. A person with a severe mental or physical disability often contributes nothing. The same goes for many of the elderly. We can bring this rationale closer in line to a criminal by discussing a smoker or drinker who ends up in hospital with cancer, or to recipients of welfare. In both cases, these people require money to survive and are contributing nothing to society, and the fact that they are contributing nothing is a direct result of their decisions earlier in life. The end result of all three instances is the same as a criminal. Money spent, nothing contributed.

That and using the excuse that they had a poor childhood is extremely lame. If they don't have a strong enough will to know what is right or wrong...will they ever? That and if they never understand the difference what right do they have to exist among people who do?Sunsha

The truth isn't lame. It's sad, but not lame. I don't think anybody can argue that people who end up on death row by and large grew up in poor circumstances and had little moral guidance. People are not born with a moral code implanted in their heads. In fact, at their instinctual core, people are born ruthless and greedy, and are concerned only with their own survival and with procreation. If nothing ever happens to make person understand why stealing is wrong, for example, that person will always believe it is justifiable to take what does not belong to him or her, because that's an easy way to satiate your greed compared to doing it the honest way. We still see that behavior manifest itself on an international scale, with countries forcibly taking what doesn't belong to them. If a person grows up resenting the authority of his or her parents due to abuse or neglect, it is unlikely that laws will have much effect on his or her mindset. After all, it's just another person threatening punishment if he or she breaks the rules, most of which probably don't make sense to the person. And if a person is shown little compassion, it's unlikely that he or she will respond to others compassionately.

So are they hopeless cases? If they grow up wrong, is it impossible to right the ship? I don't think so. People who act like idiots early in life often end up being decent citizens. Some of them even committed criminal acts but were never caught, let alone disciplined. There are, or course, people who will never be able to adhere to the guidelines of civil life, and that's what prison is for. It keeps them away from the general population without resorting to doing to them what we explicitly forbid free citizens from doing to each other.

your view of compassion for the offender is very dangerous. You hold their hand and tell them it's not their fault. Yes the root cause is where it starts but it is their responsibility to deal with it. You can waste all the money you want on programs and education but until you can infiltrate the minds and hearts of ill fitted parents, you won't have progress in that area. What they learn in school isn't the problem. The problem is horrible families with parents that don't care anymore than the criminals they're raising. Trashface

We can certainly agree on your latter point, and that's why I believe we should be much stricter with regards to parents. If you procreate, you'd better be able to live up to the demands of being responsible parents. We don't allow incompetent people to practice medicine - why the heck do we allow incompetent parents to raise children? Rigorous education of new parents should not be voluntary. Stiff penalties should be assessed to those who neglect their duties.

I do not advocate allowing criminals off the hook. They must be responsible for their actions and decisions, but by the same token, we need to consider the extenuating circumstances that lead a person to become a criminal and react responsibly. I don't think killing a person for revenge does that. People who do just that on their own accord are charged as murderers.

My views are far from short-sighted as it's very obvious I'm the type of person you're talking about and I understand completely what you're saying. Yes it's best to start at the root and avoid the issue altogether but if I am, as you say a very rare exception and it is so very hard to change, then the ones who aren't saved at the root have almost no hope.Trashface

Bad decisions need not be criminal in nature. If a person does poorly in school and develops no ambition in life because of improper guidance as a youth, it is still a negative consequence of the lack of guidance. Many people struggle with a the effects of a poor upbringing for their entire lives, totally oblivious to the fact. Without knowing anything about your situation, all I can say is that something did happen to help you come to terms with society's expectations despite the abuse you suffered. But do you think you would be the person you are today with no guidance whatsoever? Were you born naturally intelligent, and with a sense of morality that often opposes human nature? And lastly, at what age does it become impossible for a person to learn? If an answer to that question doesn't exist, then there is certainly hope for those who never learned how to behave like a decent human being as opposed to a barbaric animal.

So you've pretty much avoided the issue altogether. If we can only catch them at the root, what do we do when they grow into monsters and kill? That's what this thread is about. If my views are short-sighted, then yours are just as short sighted on the other end of the spectrum. The only difference is that I agree with a portion of watch you type. Your gripe is not with the death penalty, it's what drives people to crime. Sure let's do all we can to point them in the right direction, but if the DECIDE to follow the wrong paths and do the unspeakable, the death penalty should be waiting if it's needed. Trashface

Avoided the issue? I don't think so - unless you think I believe that we should let murderers run free. If they grow into monsters and kill, they need to be incarcerated for as long as they run the risk or re-offending... and for a lot of people, that's for their entire lives.

It seems we agree on much more than I initially believed, but I don't think either of us will change the other's mind with respect to the death penalty. You believe it needs to be available when it's needed, and I believe it isn't ever needed. In the end, it's difficult to rationally defend either opinion.

The response of execution is in no way equal to the atrocity of the offender. That statement would sicken the families of victims, but your focus is clearly not on the victims.Trashface

I remember when Timothy McVeigh was executed for the Oklahoma City bombing, and in particular a story about a man who had lost his wife in the tragedy, but spoke out publicly about the execution. He was, of course, ostracized by the other survivors' families for doing that. So why'd he do it? Because he had taken the time to contact the McVeigh family, and realized that they were going to have to suffer the loss of a loved one just as he had, and he didn't want them to endure that pain. As convenient as it is to think of criminals as monsters, they're still humans, and they leave behind people who care about them - innocent people who will suffer emotional pain as a consequence of their loved one's irresponsible behavior. Victims are easy to come by when it comes to crime.  In most cases, it's not just the victim's family that suffers as a result of the crime and the ensuing execution.

[QUOTE="Trashface"]The response of execution is in no way equal to the atrocity of the offender. That statement would sicken the families of victims, but your focus is clearly not on the victims.pianist

I remember when Timothy McVeigh was executed for the Oklahoma City bombing, and in particular a story about a man who had lost his wife in the tragedy, but spoke out publicly about the execution. He was, of course, ostracized by the other survivors' families for doing that. So why'd he do it? Because he had taken the time to contact the McVeigh family, and realized that they were going to have to suffer the loss of a loved one just as he had, and he didn't want them to endure that pain. As convenient as it is to think of criminals as monsters, they're still humans, and they leave behind people who care about them - innocent people who will suffer emotional pain as a consequence of their loved one's irresponsible behavior. Victims are easy to come by when it comes to crime.  In most cases, it's not just the victim's family that suffers as a result of the crime and the ensuing execution.

I don't support the death sentence.-CPK-

[QUOTE="-CPK-"]I don't support the death sentence.Nerfing

[QUOTE="romocop33"]in california, which has the largest death row population, the death penalty costs taxpayers $114 million per year past what it costs to keep killers in prison for life without parole.PercivalCox

 Yes, it's common knowledge that it is much more expensive to execute criminals than to punish them with life in prison.

i do and i dont.

but i  think that in extreme cases it should be used however for the majority of bad crimes, they should be left in a cell to rot.