Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

The Death Penalty
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=2176		 Page 2 of 9
Author:  Stu [ Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
ramrod wrote:
I've only counted five industrialized nations there, US and Japan. Many of the other countries are ones that we have our eyes on for their horrible human rights track records and terrorism. North Korea, China, Iran, Saudia Arabia? Are those modern, industrialized nations? Or are they ones that Bush is looking to go after.


Your original post didn't include that extra stipulation. I wasn't arguing that there were more then 5 industrial nations, I was just countering the statement that the U.S. was one of 5 total nations who still practice the death penalty.

Don't get me wrong, I am still against the death penalty. But your previous statement was incorrect. There are a number of other countries that permit the death penalty under normal circumstances, and more that allow it in special cases:
* Albania (2000)
* Argentina (1984)
* Armenia (2003)
* Bolivia (1997)
* Brazil (1979)
* Chile (2001)
* Cook Islands (n.a.)
* El Salvador (1983)
* Fiji (1979)
* Greece (1993)
* Israel (1954)
* Latvia (1999)
* Mexico (n.a.)
* Peru (1979)
* Turkey (2004)

They still aren't the 'ideal' countries to be associated with, but there are more coutries listed that have decent human rights records then there are that don't.

I don't think having or not having the death penalty is a human rights issue though. I look at it from a completely monetary perspective. The fact that it costs more to execute someone then it does to keep them in prision for life (with no possibilty of parole), combined with the fact that I feel that being imprisioned for 60+ years is a harsher punishment to begin with, leads me to the conclusion that we should abolish the death penalty outright.

To really solidfy that "life without parole" really is a harsher punishment, I also feel that certain prisoner rights need to be taken away, or at least restricted more heavily then they currently are.
Author:  Stu [ Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
Upsilon wrote:
I fail to see the point of this question. What difference would it make?


I think they were trying to make the actual execution more harsh then it currently is. Dying peacfully on a table (as the result of medications) is considerably different then if they were put in a 5x5 room with 7 starved, beaten, viscious dogs. Or perhaps, what if the execution was carried out by stoning?
Author:  Helmut [ Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Upsilon wrote:
thesgman wrote:
For proponents of the death penalty, I ask you this - Would you still be in favor of the death penalty if all the death sentenced convicts were herded into a field and shot?


I fail to see the point of this question. What difference would it make?


At some point you have to ask yourself . . . are you actually in favor of the death penalty, or are you simply in favor of one of the greatest euphemistic practices in history? Death has the same result regardless of the method used; and, if you ask me, a bullet to the head is much faster than letting chemicals slowly circulate throughout your body. So . . . is it the aspect of death that we're in favor of, or are we just afraid of being disgusted by our own methods?
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
Actually, if I've been following the discussion correctly, Stu is actually against the death penalty, but at the same time recognizes that putting to death a criminal convicted of heinous crimes is not itself necessarily a barbaric act. One could just as easily argue that keeping men in locked cages and depriving them of freedom and pursuit of happiness is just as barbaric. In fact, a number of people on this thread have expressed opposition to the death penalty because they feel it is TOO humane; they want the criminals to suffer.
Author:  Upsilon [ Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
No, my stance on the death penalty wouldn't change, regardless of the means of death. We must be at cross purposes here; I am talking about people who deserve the death penalty. You know, stoning is too good for these people. If a child rapist was chained by the limbs to four incensed elephants, I'd be the first to give my support.

Of course, if it would be worse on them to keep them in solitary confinement, that's fine by me too.
Author:  Stu [ Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:12 pm ]
Post subject: 
Upsilon wrote:
No, my stance on the death penalty wouldn't change, regardless of the means of death. We must be at cross purposes here; I am talking about people who deserve the death penalty. You know, stoning is too good for these people. If a child rapist was chained by the limbs to four incensed elephants, I'd be the first to give my support.

Of course, if it would be worse on them to keep them in solitary confinement, that's fine by me too.


If it was cheaper to tie them to elephants then to keep them locked up for 80 years, I wouldn't be against it.

I suppose I should let it be known that if our country is going to have a death penalty, we better be sure that the criminal really is the one responsible. (but I think we are all can agree to that)
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:35 am ]
Post subject: 
Life Imprisonment is better than the Death penalty. The death penalty provides an easy way out, however life imprisonment make them sit there and think about how they screwed up their life.

The best case i can think about is Scott Peterson. This guy murders his wife and unborn child and they give him death. NO NO NO NO. Give him life in prison w/o parole. Then put two pictures on the ceiling of his cell, over his bed, one of Lacy and a sonogram pic of his unborn son. That way they are the first thing he sees when he wakes up and the last thing he sees when he goes to bed.
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Tue Mar 22, 2005 5:29 am ]
Post subject: 
No pun intended, but did i just kill this post?
ok gotta say something so that this is not spam
uh...uh...ahh got it
The death penalty should be abolished, because believe it or not it is actually more expensive to execute a prisoner than it is for life imprisonment. you know with lawyer fees and state attorney fees, you know with the whole legal schtick.
Author:  Jitka [ Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:09 am ]
Post subject: 
I know, I know, mega bump, but I thought that there was enough death penalty news happening to warrant such a bump.

Recently, the U.S. executed it's thousandth prisoner since the death penalty was reinstated. Also, there's been controversy over the upcoming execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, and the execution of that Australian guy whose name I can't remember in Singapore for drug smuggling.

What's your opinion? Personally, I am for the death penalty, but I don't think it should be dispensed as freely as it is now. There needs to be stricter guidelines about when and for what crimes someone should be executed for.

Drug smuggling isn't one. I think it should only be in first degree murder cases where the defendant shows no remorse and there is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that he is guilty, as was the case with Timothy McVeigh.

Oh, and by the by...

:mrgreen: :eekdance: :eekdance: 2500th post! :eekdance: :eekdance: :mrgreen:
Author:  Mr.KISS [ Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:22 am ]
Post subject: 
Holy crap, big bump...


I dont think the death penalty is at all needed. It seems like just way to uncrowd the over crowded prisons by killing anyone for even things that are miniscule, like attempted murder, Just give them a life sentence. Maybe if it wern't so easy to break out of prison nowdays it'd be used more (there's been like, 4 breakouts from Max security prisons in the last month or so).
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
If Prisons are crowded, build another prison. It's not as if the Death penalty is cheap, and all of your tax momey is going anywhere necessary.
Author:  StrongRad [ Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
Rosalie wrote:
If Prisons are crowded, build another prison. It's not as if the Death penalty is cheap, and all of your tax momey is going anywhere necessary.

The problem with doing that comes from what George Carlin calls "NIMBY".
Not in my backyard.

People don't want prisons built near them.

The death penalty isn't close to being a solution for overcrowding, anyway, nor should it be considered as such. A majority of our prison population aren't guilty of what I would consider "death worthy" crimes.

I don't know if I support the death penalty or not. It seems too easy on the criminal to be given an IV and "put to sleep".

It's sad that someone who butchers a 6 year old can get that, but someone in chronic pain is forced to wait until cancer kills them.

If someone does something extremely horrible (BTK killer type crimes), then, yes, I have no problem with them being put to death, provided they actually did the crimes they of which they were convicted and show no signs of remorse. If the person truly feels sorry, then I like the "life in prison with pictures (possibly voice recordings) of their victims" idea.

The only real anti-death penalty argument I disagree with is the whole "it is cruel and unusual punishment" one. In America, you pretty much have to do something horrific (intentionally take at least 1+ life) to get a death sentence. So, I don't think hanging, leathal injection, firing squad, electric chair, or gas chamber (the 5 legal methods in the US, I think) are cruel or unusual in that case, no matter how painful they may be, (unless you gave your victim a painless death, then you should get one, too)
If you could get a death sentence for something like parking tickets, then, yea, I would see it as cruel and unusual, but in cases of mass murder, it doesn't bother me, provided we have absolute proof of guilt (and you do have that in SOME cases).
Author:  Prof. Tor Coolguy [ Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
So, I don't think hanging, leathal injection, firing squad, electric chair, or gas chamber


I have a problem with both death by firing squad and gas chamber. It seems a little too horrible a fate for even hardened criminals. It isn't like they shoot you in the head, from what I've seen in news clips they shoot you from medium range which I don't really agree with. And I've never been a fan of death by lack of oxygen, probably stems from my brush with death by the same means.

Are these two options still used?
Author:  Didymus [ Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:16 pm ]
Post subject: 
Firing squads are used mostly for military and wartime executions, for example, against convicted spies and traitors.
Author:  StrongRad [ Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
Prof. Tor Coolguy wrote:
StrongRad wrote:
So, I don't think hanging, leathal injection, firing squad, electric chair, or gas chamber


I have a problem with both death by firing squad and gas chamber. It seems a little too horrible a fate for even hardened criminals. It isn't like they shoot you in the head, from what I've seen in news clips they shoot you from medium range which I don't really agree with. And I've never been a fan of death by lack of oxygen, probably stems from my brush with death by the same means.

Are these two options still used?


Gas chamber is available in Arizona, California, Maryland, Missouri, Wyoming.

Firing squad is semi-allowed in Idaho, Oklahoma*, Utah**

All of the states that use these have lethal injection as an option, left up to the inmate.

*Oklahoma retained the firing squad in case lethal injection AND electrocution are found to be unconstitutional

**Utah allows inmates who commited their crimes prior to the state outlawing firing squads to choose death by firing squad.

I found this here.
Author:  PizzaTrophy [ Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:03 am ]
Post subject: 
Firing squad is not necessarily just for wartime executions.
In the case of convicted Australian drug smuggler Schapelle Corby in Bali, they spoke about her facing a firing squad if sentenced to death. Luckily, her 20yr sentence was recently reduced to 15.

The guy who was recently hanged in Singapore (Van Ngyuen), was in prison for 3 years pending his execution.

I'm not for the death penalty. Luckily, it was abolished in Australia some time ago. However, if a different country decides to dole out this kind of punishment, it's their choice, and they get the world-wide ramifications of their choice.

However, methods such as hanging and firing squad are too barbaric. I think the only acceptable form of this death is by lethal injection. It might not be cheap, but it is painless and quick. Just because the person is a convicted criminal doesn't mean they have to be subjected to a painful and scary death.

Also the circumstances in which the death penalty takes place is arguable. Drug smuggling does not seem that terrible a conviction to be put to death. In comparison to rape and mass murders (eg, genocide and infanticide), it seems not as serious. You could argue that drug smuggling has the potential to kill several people through abuse and misuse etc, but that is not the direct fault of the smuggler.

I think I've said my piece.
Author:  StrongRad [ Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:35 am ]
Post subject: 
PizzaTrophy wrote:
However, methods such as hanging and firing squad are too barbaric. I think the only acceptable form of this death is by lethal injection. It might not be cheap, but it is painless and quick. Just because the person is a convicted criminal doesn't mean they have to be subjected to a painful and scary death.

I'm sure the family and friends of Katie Autry would beg to differ.
Personally, I laughed when I heard that lethal injection was causing the condemned discomfort.
Unless they were wrongfully sentenced to death (in which case even a completely painless death is wrong), I don't see why they should be treated any better than they treated their victims.
Author:  SupaBobbb [ Thu Dec 08, 2005 7:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
for the most part, I am against death penalties.
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Thu Dec 08, 2005 8:52 pm ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
PizzaTrophy wrote:
However, methods such as hanging and firing squad are too barbaric. I think the only acceptable form of this death is by lethal injection. It might not be cheap, but it is painless and quick. Just because the person is a convicted criminal doesn't mean they have to be subjected to a painful and scary death.

I'm sure the family and friends of Katie Autry would beg to differ.
Personally, I laughed when I heard that lethal injection was causing the condemned discomfort.
Unless they were wrongfully sentenced to death (in which case even a completely painless death is wrong), I don't see why they should be treated any better than they treated their victims.


Umm... I don't see how that's a valid excuse.

"They killed someone, so we get to kill them?" Revoking their ability to kill, just as you would revote the ability of a bigot to discriminate(as mentioned in another thread, cross referncing because I know someone will point out a similiarity in what I said) is fine, killing them isn't. It isn't *entiely* hypocritical, but it is wrong.
Author:  Mr.KISS [ Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
Rosalie wrote:

"They killed someone, so we get to kill them?"


I think that hits the nail square on the head, if people didn't like having their family killed, don't do it to others.
Author:  seamusz [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:02 am ]
Post subject: 
This gets into what exactly are ethical punishments. I don't want any member of my family to get pulled over by a cop and ticketed for speeding, but if they choose to speed, thats the consequence, and a fitting one.

So in my opinion, if someone commits an illegal act they are accepting the consequece that goes with that, regardless of whether or not the consequence is ethical. As a society, it is up to us to always evaluate our consequences and ensure that they are ethical.

I would also like to state that there is a huge difference in someone murdering another, and one being executed for a crime. One is an act of selfish disregard for human life and the other is an attempt to apply appropriate consequenses, discourage similiar behavior in an attempt to safe gaurd life, and to see that justice is served.
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:08 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
I would also like to state that there is a huge difference in someone murdering another, and one being executed for a crime. One is an act of selfish disregard for human life and the other is an attempt to apply appropriate consequenses,


That's debatable. I would view executing someone as a self righteous disregard for human life.
Author:  Ju Ju Master [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:24 am ]
Post subject: 
Rosalie wrote:
Quote:
I would also like to state that there is a huge difference in someone murdering another, and one being executed for a crime. One is an act of selfish disregard for human life and the other is an attempt to apply appropriate consequenses,


That's debatable. I would view executing someone as a self righteous disregard for human life.


And i would veiw murdering someone as a disregard for human life. So if they take someone else's life, they don't deserve to have theirs. They also obviously don't value life, so taking their's away shoul;dn't be a problem.
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:36 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:

And i would veiw murdering someone as a disregard for human life. So if they take someone else's life, they don't deserve to have theirs. They also obviously don't value life, so taking their's away shoul;dn't be a problem.


That's making far too mnay massive presumptions. First you have to take motive into consideration, and it still doesn't answer why it's right to kill them. Because they killed someone? That's hardly s sensible way to act.

There has to be some way of telling the good guys from the bad guys pretending to be good guys.
Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:44 am ]
Post subject: 
Nobody's saying that killing should equal execution.
Manslaughter doesn't warrant the death penalty.
Usually, neither does 2nd degree murder.
First Degree, cold-blood murder is what I'm talking about when I say that murderers deserve to be put to death. If you plan out killing someone, or kill them while committing a crime, you obviously have no problem with the taking of a life.
I don't see that the state should have any problem taking yours.

That's my opinion. Unless you've had a friend or family member brutally murdered, I don't see you have a right to judge me for it.
Author:  Joshua [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:55 am ]
Post subject: 
My opinion is that it's the intention that matters when it comes to execution.

If someone is executed just for revenge, it's wrong.
But if someone seems like he is still dangerous and would kill more people if he escapes from jail, I'm fine with execution.

That will be all.
Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:58 am ]
Post subject: 
On a side note, I've always wondered why they have to make sure the condemned doesn't commit suicide. "We can't have him killing himself before we kill him."

Doesn't make much sense, save for the last hour pardon.
Author:  Mistle Rose [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:08 am ]
Post subject: 
StrongRad wrote:
Nobody's saying that killing should equal execution.
Manslaughter doesn't warrant the death penalty.
Usually, neither does 2nd degree murder.
First Degree, cold-blood murder is what I'm talking about when I say that murderers deserve to be put to death. If you plan out killing someone, or kill them while committing a crime, you obviously have no problem with the taking of a life.
I don't see that the state should have any problem taking yours.

That's my opinion. Unless you've had a friend or family member brutally murdered, I don't see you have a right to judge me for it.


Why do they deserve it though?

And using emotions to cloud your judgement is not an argument.

Not that I'm trying to get Mr. Spock on your butt, but, actually emotion is exactly the reason NOT to be emotionally bias, because otherwise you end up ignoring the motions of the killer(who DOES have them) and more importantly their friends and family.
Author:  StrongRad [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 1:16 am ]
Post subject: 
Rosalie wrote:
StrongRad wrote:
Nobody's saying that killing should equal execution.
Manslaughter doesn't warrant the death penalty.
Usually, neither does 2nd degree murder.
First Degree, cold-blood murder is what I'm talking about when I say that murderers deserve to be put to death. If you plan out killing someone, or kill them while committing a crime, you obviously have no problem with the taking of a life.
I don't see that the state should have any problem taking yours.

That's my opinion. Unless you've had a friend or family member brutally murdered, I don't see you have a right to judge me for it.


Why do they deserve it though?

And using emotions to cloud your judgement is not an argument.

Not that I'm trying to get Mr. Spock on your -CENSOR'd!!-, but, actually emotion is exactly the reason NOT to be emotionally bias, because
otherwise you end up ignoring the motions of the killer(who DOES have them) and more importantly their friends and family.


Please quit trying to turn the criminal into the victim.

If you rape, stab, beat, and set someone on fire, I honestly don't think ANYONE should care about your emotions. If you don't want to face the death penalty, you shouldn't do something so awful.

I don't want lethal injection, so, you know what I do? I don't kill people.
That works pretty good for a majority of people.
It is highly unfortunate that innocent people are put to death, but that is an indictment on the prosecution and the defense, not the death penalty (although, granted, you can always let someone go when you find out they are innocent. it's hard to bring them back to life. Well, I don't know how to do it, anyway)
Author:  Mr.KISS [ Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:35 am ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
So in my opinion, if someone commits an illegal act they are accepting the consequece that goes with that, regardless of whether or not the consequence is ethical. As a society, it is up to us to always evaluate our consequences and ensure that they are ethical.


Well why should death be the consequence? I honestly see no reason for it besides revenge. I agree, without it alot of people would just go on a rampage (it's working pretty good up here, but then again we have anti-gun laws). I think the only reason a person should be put to death is if they kill for the joy of it. If someone kills in revenge or for any other motive then just for thrill, then prison for them. But, if your an actual threat to many people and not just a select few, then I think they should either be put in one of those looney bins (please interpret that less harshly then it sounds) or be put to death.

I know this sounds bad, but I was trying to think of a compromise and that's the best I got, it's not my actual view.
Page 2 of 9 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/