OT: An Eye for an Eye type punishment?

[Dacks]

I can't say I agree or disagree with that form of punishment either. I wouldn't want my tax money supporting two people instead of one, hell I don't want to support anyone but myself and my family. I agree with puckhead whole heartedly. Off him or make him support the man for life. Our society is ridiculous as well. Put a man on death row, and keep him alive forever til he just dies of old age, if someone is sentenced to life in prison or the death sentence, they should just be put against a wall execution style, and pop. Case closed.

Yeah, cause it's not like anyone innocent has been wrongly found guilty and released years later. What do you say to the family then? "Oops, guess we should have waited a bit on the execution bit?"

In which case, the execution could easily be construed as murder. Following the eye for an eye mandate, is the state required to then commit seppuku?

I know a lot of people here were joking, but 'eye for an eye' is not the solution.

 

[SLY]

Yeah, cause it's not like anyone innocent has been wrongly found guilty and released years later. What do you say to the family then? "Oops, guess we should have waited a bit on the execution bit?"

In which case, the execution could easily be construed as murder. Following the eye for an eye mandate, is the state required to then commit seppuku?

I know a lot of people here were joking, but 'eye for an eye' is not the solution.

In a case where is it 100% proven, then that should be how it is carried out. Yes there are many cases where the wrong person is behind bars. But when a serial killer, or murderer is just rotting on death row, they should be put to rest within a month of being brought in.

 

[Dacks]

In a case where is it 100% proven, then that should be how it is carried out. Yes there are many cases where the wrong person is behind bars. But when a serial killer, or murderer is just rotting on death row, they should be put to rest within a month of being brought in.

What's 100% proven?

A witness? What if they're wrong? Or lying?

 

[dare2be]

What's 100% proven?

A witness? What if they're wrong? Or lying?

Forensics, DNA, ballistics, etc.

 

[Dacks]

Forensics, DNA, ballistics, etc.

Okay, but there's still a judgement call, at some point someone (a judge, jury, etc...) has to decide what's 100% or not. There will always be a boundary. And on that boundary, some people are going to be let off with maybe life in prison, some people will get execution.

There's a great book, Blink!, that talks about our subconscious bias. Along that vein, take a look at item 10 on this list. Blacks arrested for drug crimes are incarcerated more often and for longer sentences than whites convicted of the same crimes. I don't want to start a race topic, only to point out that humans are sometimes biased in ways they don't even know. Do you want that bias deciding whether people live or die, in those borderline cases?

Not to mention, even things like forensics, DNA, ballistics, are open to human error, intentional or unintentional.

 

[Destroydacre]

I can't say I'd approve of this. It also doesn't say much about some of the doctors over there if they'd be willing to do this too. Now don't get me wrong, I'm tolerant of other people's cultures, but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion about them. There's a reason people think that it's like the stone age in the middle east, and these types of things are the reason why.

 

[filosofy29]

I gotta agree with Dacks Shepard on this one. Too much human error and in some cases corruption involved. I can see if a guy is all out of appeals already.....but even then, you still obviously run the risk of putting an innocent man to death.

Plus, you have to see what kind of precedent you could be setting here. If the government controls the courts and the justice system and they control the execution system.....what happens when a person is deemed too dangerous for society because they exercise their 1st Amendment (ala John Lennon and Bob Marley.....and no, I'm not saying that the government killed these people)? You don't think the government would start setting up innocent people for murders that they didn't commit?

While on the surface, it seems like a good idea, especially for the affected families (i.e. - families of the murdered). It's thinking with the heart and not the head in my opinion.....and these are where we usually make the biggest mistakes.

 

[Comeds]

I'd rather keep such barbaric practices out of our modern, civilized society.

Just my opinion though...

Mine too.

As for the death penalty I am completely OK with each state deciding whether to have it or not. For the most life in prison or death penalty makes no difference to me.

However if pressed I think the death penalty is wrong and hypocritical.

 

[dare2be]

As far as deterrent goes, I think for capital offenses that would require life in prison or death, permanent castration would be a more effective sentence.

 

[SLY]

I guess I'm a barbarian. We are too civil, too many bleeding hearts.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

One of my big arguments for the death penalty is the safety of the other inmates and prison guards. I have a few really good friends who are in the Loudoun County Sheriffs Dept. and they cut their teeth in the prisons in Virginia. They have told me that prisoners with life terms and no potential for parole are far and away the most dangerous prisoners they have to deal with. They have nothing to lose and are usually pretty young and become absolute terrors in the system for a long long long time.

As far as I am concerned, the death penalty should be used in the case of extreme capital offenses such as first degree murder, killing of a police officer, terrorism, serial r*pe or torture, and should certainly be open to at least two appeals.

 

[Comeds]

I guess I'm a barbarian. We are too civil, too many bleeding hearts.

I don't consider you a barbarian if you are in favor of the death penalty even if I disagree with you. I also don't consider myself or others that oppose it to be bleeding hearts.

 

[juliansteed]

As far as I am concerned, the death penalty should be used in the case of extreme capital offenses such as first degree murder, killing of a police officer, terrorism, serial r*pe or torture, and should certainly be open to at least two appeals.

I think this sounds reasonable. Some people will argue that the death penalty costs tax-payers more than life in prison as hard as that is to believe. I think they simply need to come up with a more cost-effective way of implimenting the death penalty.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I think this sounds reasonable. Some people will argue that the death penalty costs tax-payers more than life in prison as hard as that is to believe. I think they simply need to come up with a more cost-effective way of implimenting the death penalty.

You can get a box of jacketed, 45 ACP, 185 grain hollow points for around 35 dollars....

(and to qualify why cop killing should be punished by death: In order to keep sanity and order, someone has to be able to step in and say the proverbial "STOP" with enough authority to make an action stop. In our society, that authority figure is the low payed police officer. If we take away that proverbial mediator or his influence, we take away law and order at it's core, so an attack on that mediator increases the crime, IMHO)

 

[DaBoltsNIsles]

I think this sounds reasonable. Some people will argue that the death penalty costs tax-payers more than life in prison as hard as that is to believe. I think they simply need to come up with a more cost-effective way of implimenting the death penalty.

I disagree on r*pe. If anyone is convicted of r*pe they should simply have there you know what cut off. This would be a major deterrant.

 

[dare2be]

I disagree on r*pe. If anyone is convicted of r*pe they should simply have there you know what cut off. This would be a major deterrant.

Don't just limit it to r*pe...I think a lot of violent crimes would be deterred by the fear of having it lopped off. Moreso than even death. Most would rather die than lose it.

 

[juliansteed]

I disagree on r*pe. If anyone is convicted of r*pe they should simply have there you know what cut off. This would be a major deterrant.

Not a bad idea. The problem here (and this applies to the death penalty for r*pe as well) is that its so hard to get a conviction as it is because its often 1 person's word vs another. You make the punishment anything like this and it will be even more difficult.

Also I guess I failed to mention it in my last post but I disagree with the death penalty for r*pe too. r*pe is not as bad as murder. As horrible as r*pe is that is the reality. The death penalty for r*pe is not an eye for an eye its an eye, ear, and nose for an eye. That being said, I don't necessarily have a problem with giving criminals a worse fate than that of their victims at all. Except that if we start punishing acts other than murder as severely or worse than murder then I think the murder rate will go up. In other words, there will be a lot less r*pe victims left alive to tell their story.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I am talking about serial r*pe...more aimed at the child molesters who ruin the lives of multiple children before they are even old enough to understand what innocence is....