Log in

View Full Version : old enough to kill = old enough to be executed?


alexandra
05-26-2005, 10:40 AM

bb_bboy
05-26-2005, 11:39 AM
I think the question is too general. I would say yes in some instances and no in others. But, I think that it is applicable in some instances, if you beleive in the death penalty. I think that, under the right circumstances, minors should receive punishment equal to what adults receive.

boys_beastie
05-27-2005, 04:08 AM
no-one is old enough to be executed

Funkaloyd
05-27-2005, 04:45 AM
What about this guy (http://www.terra.com/addon/img/actualidad/1315be5ancianop.jpg), he's pretty damn old. Can we kill him?

STANKY808
05-27-2005, 11:45 AM
You sure he's alive?

boys_beastie
05-29-2005, 03:57 PM
What about this guy (http://www.terra.com/addon/img/actualidad/1315be5ancianop.jpg), he's pretty damn old. Can we kill him?

yes, but only on a steak, in medievil britain -.-

ASsman
05-29-2005, 07:56 PM
killing people who kill other people to prove killing people is wrong is a killer idea!
Yes of course, charming...

I say we make them fight for their lives for our entertainment... Maybe it's not original, but is it ENTERTAINING OR WHAT!?

iceygirl
05-29-2005, 07:58 PM
i think people who have committed serious violent crimes (rape, murder, etc) should be used for medical research rather than executing them. BUAH!

Humiliation
05-30-2005, 04:06 AM
The death penalty is wrong, for the very reason that you can't ressurect someone. THere are quite a few life sentences that have been withdrawn because the person was acutally INNOCENT :eek:

They last execution in australia was in the 70s. I can't remember the guys name but until his death he claimed to be not guilty. Now they are finding evidence he wasn't. But too bad for him, we just killed an innocent person.

guerillaGardner
05-31-2005, 05:26 PM
What would execution achieve?

The USA is one of the few countries of the world that still has a death penalty but has one of the worst records of violent crime. So it's clearly not a deterrent.

There are also too many cases of wrongful conviction. There have been cases where the evidence and the professional witnesses were so convincing that the accused had to be guilty but it turned out the professional witness had screwed up and didn't want to admit mistakes.

DNA evidence gets contaminated because of poor lab hygiene, witnesses lie, people make mistakes making wrongful execution all too likely. I've often heard people say that the odd mistake would be worth it to get the bad guys off of the streets for good, but I'm sure it would be different if the same people shrugging off the odd wrongful execution were the ones being wrongfully executed themselves.

And I'm not saying this as someone insulated from the issue. My brother was murdered by a guy who wrongly thought my brother had smashed his car up but I just don't believe the death penalty is a reasonable response to crime.

Ace42
05-31-2005, 09:21 PM
Indeed, both finger-printing and DNA profiling have come under recent criticism for having their validity based on incorrect statistical analysis. People these days (thanks to propoganda, crime thrillers, and the need for closure and certainty in the penal justice system) are convinced that finger-printing is proof-positive that a person made them, this is a mistake that no justice system is currently willing to admit.

addendum:

Infact, I think a much more pertinent question would be: "What is the purpose of our criminal justice system?"

I'd say that there are three possible answers (significant answers, while saying 'its only purpose is to create an illusion of security' is valid and interesting, it is getting away from the discussion so far) -

1. To Reform (To turn criminals into better members of society)
2. To protect (To prevent criminals from harming members of society)
3. To avenge (To give those aggrieved the chance to fulfil the biological need to take action against someone who has wronged them)

Of course there is a degree of over-lap, sucessfully reforming a criminal will result in protecting society, and a punishment might well satisfy all of these goals, whether that is the desired result or not.

However, depending on how you regard its purpose, different punishments can take on different merits.

For example, if you consider the purpose of our criminal justice system is to "protect" - then simply locking away criminals is sufficient. However, if a criminal is unlikely to re-offend (IE they killed someone accidentaly, or broke the speed limit in order to get their wife to hospital, etc) then of course any sort of punishment is unnecessary.

If it is to "reform" then execution is of course totally unnacceptable, as you cannot reform a dead man. Even if you assume someone is "beyond reform", then execution is no more permissable (or rather, no less permissable) than euthanasia is for people like Schiavo who was "beyond help."

If it is for revenge, then clearly execution is only desirable after the target has already been tortured. However, clearly this would also mean that anyone who is wronged by you would equally be vindicated in wanting revenge. Revenge has a habit of leading to feuds and escalating violence. Logically, the innocent people who feel aggrieved at having their friend/family member / lover executed would be justified in expecting revenge on the executioner (or even the people who wanted revenge, by proxy.)

I'd like to think that people would be able to see that there is no place for "revenge" in a sophisticated civilisation (a tall order for most yanks, I appreciate, but dum spiro spero) - and if you look at it clinically, then clearly execution has no place in a justice system. Even if you swear by it as "the ultimate protection" from "bad people" - that does not make it superior to a life-sentance other than saving the costs of housing and boarding the criminal.

Infact, if you eliminate the idea of revenge - what is it to the general public if the criminals are kept in 5 star hotels and live a life of luxury. "That's unfair" - well, maybe, but you are just as protected whether they are locked up in jail or dead. And clearly they are more likely to reform in pleasant surroundings than the "universities of crime" that prisons are often described as.

Really, if you look at it objectively, I'd say that people who like to think of themselves as "tough on crime" - when you cut the bullshit, really mean they are bloodthirsty and that they demand immature, primitive, bestial revenge.

A last thought - isn't it funny how hicks think that people in a permanent vegetative state should be kept alive indefinately because "science might develop a cure / god might see fit to perform a miracle" but they do not think execution should be banned, even though it is much more likely that science could develop a therapy / god would see fit to perform a miracle" on a criminal.

Personally I think that translates to "God thinks terminally ill crusty white people should live, and healthy young black people should die."

kinzababar
11-22-2005, 03:56 AM
I positively without any doubt agree that a person should be punished for his/her crime. I infact would even suggest that the proceeding for a person being put to death penalty should be allowed to be reviewed by the general public. Seeing such last emotional scenes would have a lot of effect on people to think twice before committing a crime.

I realize that this not ethical as for some people to see such scenes but law enforcment agencies should think of some way to make it viewed. There is a solution to everything.

Ali
11-22-2005, 04:16 AM
I positively without any doubt agree that a person should be punished for his/her crime. I infact would even suggest that the proceeding for a person being put to death penalty should be allowed to be reviewed by the general public. Seeing such last emotional scenes would have a lot of effect on people to think twice before committing a crime.

I realize that this not ethical as for some people to see such scenes but law enforcment agencies should think of some way to make it viewed. There is a solution to everything.Ahh, public executions. How I yearn for the days when we could take the family down to the town square and see some deserving criminals get hanged or beheaded. On the way home, we could shop for slaves and butter.

fucktopgirl
11-22-2005, 09:59 AM
this is so relatif !

I dont think death penalty is a way to improve society!
i like the idea of icegirl,use them for medical research!(bad psycho one)
haha make them suffer a bit!

wanton wench
11-22-2005, 10:19 AM
ace42-i was reading your post and i agree with pretty much everything you were saying untill i got to this..........................

A last thought - isn't it funny how hicks think that people in a permanent vegetative state should be kept alive indefinately because "science might develop a cure / god might see fit to perform a miracle" but they do not think execution should be banned, even though it is much more likely that science could develop a therapy / god would see fit to perform a miracle" on a criminal.

i really hope "hicks" is a persons name because i cant believe after what you posted that you would be so close minded to think that all hicks believe this!

valvano
11-22-2005, 12:17 PM
has anybody who has ever been executed committed another crime?

:confused: :D

case closed

wanton wench
11-22-2005, 12:21 PM
case reopened-due to new information!

how many people executed have later been found innocent?
:)

Nadia
11-22-2005, 01:03 PM
isn't the right to live one of the basic human rights?!
i'm totally against death penalty, there are plenty of ways to "punish" a criminal, and death penalty is not one of them. no matter what he/she did.
killing someone because he/she killed somebody is not gonna bring anybody back to live...

valvano
11-22-2005, 01:21 PM
isn't the right to live one of the basic human rights?!
.

even if you take that right away from somebody else :confused:

valvano
11-22-2005, 01:24 PM
case reopened-due to new information!

how many people executed have later been found innocent?
:)


how about cases reopened because lawyers continue to drag and drag cases through the system? we can always find "new information" on any subject if we want to.........

and how many people who were executed despite the protest of bleeding
heart liberals were later found that they did, infact, commit the crime that they said they didnt? how come we never hear a peep about those cases from those same people protesting??

:confused:

Nadia
11-22-2005, 01:32 PM
even if you take that right away from somebody else :confused:

yes. there are plenty of ways to punish somebody. and to break a basic human right to punish a criminal.... baaaaad karma

wanton wench
11-22-2005, 01:59 PM
how about cases reopened because lawyers continue to drag and drag cases through the system? we can always find "new information" on any subject if we want to.........

and how many people who were executed despite the protest of bleeding
heart liberals were later found that they did, infact, commit the crime that they said they didnt? how come we never hear a peep about those cases from those same people protesting??

:confused:
who wants to admit they were wrong?

i didnt say our system was great there are loads of things wrong with it. but killing someone because 12 people "believe" they are guilty is not right! and to me thats the easy way out for the criminal. if they are guilty they should be made to suffer. i forget when and where this happened but i remember reading it, a drunk driver kills a little boy and the family takes him to court he is found guilty and instead of going to jail (well maybe he went to jail for awhile i cant remember) the family requests that he sends them a dollar everyday for the rest of his life. so everyday he has to write a check, address an envelope and mail it. easy? the guilt of having to face what he did everyday consumed him! to me that is more of a punishment than death.

valvano
11-22-2005, 02:05 PM
yes. there are plenty of ways to punish somebody. and to break a basic human right to punish a criminal.... baaaaad karma

and will those other ways ensure they won't commit that crime again as well as the death penalty does in making sure they dont commit that crime again??

:rolleyes:

valvano
11-22-2005, 02:07 PM
who wants to admit they were wrong?

i didnt say our system was great there are loads of things wrong with it. but killing someone because 12 people "believe" they are guilty is not right! and to me thats the easy way out for the criminal. if they are guilty they should be made to suffer. i forget when and where this happened but i remember reading it, a drunk driver kills a little boy and the family takes him to court he is found guilty and instead of going to jail (well maybe he went to jail for awhile i cant remember) the family requests that he sends them a dollar everyday for the rest of his life. so everyday he has to write a check, address an envelope and mail it. easy? the guilt of having to face what he did everyday consumed him! to me that is more of a punishment than death.

so I guess you also believe that letting a guilty person go free because 12 people "believe" he is innocent is also not right?
:rolleyes:

and did this person who you reference in your example go on to do any more drunk driving?

greedygretchen
11-22-2005, 02:23 PM
This is where things get a little murky for me because I am a bleeding heart liberal...I am not against the idea of the death penalty (or using hard core criminals for medical research- which I think is a splendid idea) but I do think our justice system is more than a little fucked up (some drug offenses get more jail time than pedophilia?) and that many poor people (minorities & whites like the West Memphis Three) end up on death row because they don't have adequate legal council

there's a case right now going on in California where a former gang banger is about to be executed...a lot of people are protesting his execution because he's "reformed" and he's up for a Nobel Peace Prize or something-now to me that's bullshit. He still should be punished for his crime.

However, if there is evidence that he was framed or innocent, then let that evidence come to light and be re-examined because there is just plain ol' human error and police corruption also. Rafael Mendez and his police ring of thugs ring a bell?

valvano
11-22-2005, 02:29 PM
there's a case right now going on in California where a former gang banger is about to be executed...a lot of people are protesting his execution because he's "reformed" and he's up for a Nobel Peace Prize or something-now to me that's bullshit. ?


glad to hear the criminal has reformed his life....did a victim get to reform their life or persue a Nobel Prize?





oh, thats right...they are DEAD which makes it a little hard

wanton wench
11-22-2005, 03:27 PM
so I guess you also believe that letting a guilty person go free because 12 people "believe" he is innocent is also not right?
:rolleyes:

and did this person who you reference in your example go on to do any more drunk driving?
no they never drank again! i wish i could find the story! and your first question, why do you roll your eyes? i dont think its right! with all the stereotypes and racism and corruption in the world how could anyone get a fair trial! there are too many problems with our system to try and change one and think that would make a difference. we have made it too hard to tell or see the truth!

Funkaloyd
11-22-2005, 07:42 PM
i cant believe after what you posted that you would be so close minded to think that all hicks believe this!
By many people's definition, you're not a hick if you don't support the death penalty.

EN[i]GMA
11-22-2005, 10:27 PM
killing people who kill other people to prove killing people is wrong is a killer idea!

We're not 'proving it's wrong', we're punishing them.

racer5.0stang
11-22-2005, 10:36 PM
i think people who have committed serious violent crimes (rape, murder, etc) should be used for medical research rather than executing them. BUAH!

And if said person is innocent?

Instead of being put to death now they have missing organs or a third arm.

By many people's definition, you're not a hick if you don't support the death penalty.

Sounds like it isn't the "hick" who is closed minded.

i forget when and where this happened but i remember reading it, a drunk driver kills a little boy and the family takes him to court he is found guilty and instead of going to jail (well maybe he went to jail for awhile i cant remember) the family requests that he sends them a dollar everyday for the rest of his life. so everyday he has to write a check, address an envelope and mail it. easy? the guilt of having to face what he did everyday consumed him! to me that is more of a punishment than death.

Seems like it would force the family to remember the tragedy as well, not just the killer.

kleptomaniac
11-22-2005, 10:38 PM
executing a killer is nothing but sinking to the killer's level... :rolleyes:

valvano
11-23-2005, 07:17 AM
executing a killer is nothing but sinking to the killer's level... :rolleyes:


nope, the killing of the victim was unwarranted,

the execution of the criminal is justice

:D

TonsOfFun
11-23-2005, 07:49 AM
I wouldn't class any democratic country with the death penalty still as civilised. Or I suppose those that beleive in it aren't civilised but if it's democratic and civilised it should hopefully vote it self out...

valvano
11-23-2005, 09:28 AM
I wouldn't class any democratic country with the death penalty still as civilised. Or I suppose those that beleive in it aren't civilised but if it's democratic and civilised it should hopefully vote it self out...


isnt this sort of like the famous groucho marx quoute about not wanting to belong to any club that would have him as a member?

wanton wench
11-23-2005, 09:41 AM
Seems like it would force the family to remember the tragedy as well, not just the killer.
thats different! the family will never forget anyway. i would rather be reminded that the person responsible is suffering. rather than just me suffering while they are out enjoying their life.

racer5.0stang
11-23-2005, 10:08 AM
thats different! the family will never forget anyway. i would rather be reminded that the person responsible is suffering. rather than just me suffering while they are out enjoying their life.


I'm sure the family will never forget, but I would not want a monthly reminder.

Schmeltz
11-23-2005, 11:24 AM
The death penalty is a Draconian holdover from less sophisticated, more barbarous incarnations of civilization. Which countries, in addition to the United States, are the only ones that still execute juveniles? Real bastions of progress and enlightenment like Iran and Saudi Arabia, if I recall correctly. The death penalty is not an effective deterrent to violent crime, and serves only to satisfy the lust for revenge (not justice - very big difference) on the part of the victim.

Moreover, it's interesting to see the inconsistency in the ideology of those who typically support the death penalty. Here we have conservatives and libertarian, people who consistently argue for the minimization of government intervention in peoples' lives, turning around and asserting that the state should have the right to execute its citizenry. If you allow your government to kill you, what makes you think it won't raise your taxes?

Knocking off the citizenry is a shortsighted and barbaric solution to the problem of crime. The creation of a society that values and respects the right to life is a much more permanent and civilized way to address the problem. But of course, we couldn't possibly expect to see any conservative advocate such a solution - what would happen to their precious guns and wars if people thought that way?

valvano
11-23-2005, 11:35 AM
The death penalty is a Draconian holdover from less sophisticated, more barbarous incarnations of civilization. Which countries, in addition to the United States, are the only ones that still execute juveniles? Real bastions of progress and enlightenment like Iran and Saudi Arabia, if I recall correctly. The death penalty is not an effective deterrent to violent crime, and serves only to satisfy the lust for revenge (not justice - very big difference) on the part of the victim.

Moreover, it's interesting to see the inconsistency in the ideology of those who typically support the death penalty. Here we have conservatives and libertarian, people who consistently argue for the minimization of government intervention in peoples' lives, turning around and asserting that the state should have the right to execute its citizenry. If you allow your government to kill you, what makes you think it won't raise your taxes?

Knocking off the citizenry is a shortsighted and barbaric solution to the problem of crime. The creation of a society that values and respects the right to life is a much more permanent and civilized way to address the problem. But of course, we couldn't possibly expect to see any conservative advocate such a solution - what would happen to their precious guns and wars if people thought that way?

so we should all just hold hands and sing kumbaya and everything will be okay?

wanton wench
11-23-2005, 11:38 AM
so we should all just hold hands and sing kumbaya and everything will be okay?
we could give it a try! wouldnt hurt anything! i think it starts at home. if we dont teach our children better then the world will only get worse!

Schmeltz
11-23-2005, 11:38 AM
I daresay, valvano, that that is the most witty, substantive, and well-thought-out post I've yet seen from you. I mean it.

TonsOfFun
11-23-2005, 02:18 PM
isnt this sort of like the famous groucho marx quoute about not wanting to belong to any club that would have him as a member?

Erm, I dunno. It's my point of view which has obviously been developed from what I've decided is right and wrong from influences I've been involved in heard and seen. I'm sure many others have that point of so the wording might of come from my subconscience that I've heard before. But I haven't quoted anything. Just typed what my fingers pressed :D