Enforce the Death Penalty Again?

[pkwithpink]

I agree that for a murder/homicide/manslaughter with undeniable evidence the death penalty should be given. For a murder with very loose evidence it should be jail time, and for vehicular manslaughter it should be jail time as well because most vehicular manslaughters occur while the driver is drunk.

My basis is this, why do criminals get to kill an innocent person, and get to spend a couple years in jail then roam free again, the victim will never see daylight again but this murderer will still enjoy life.

The second reason I feel the death penalty should be issued more often is because keeping someone in jail for life costs a lot of money, and we all know that money comes from the taxpayers. Why should I pay to keep a murderer locked away when to kill him will cost much less and benefit society much more.

 

[Phatz_Owner]

What were the conditions by the fake surgeon? I mean was he working for a hospital or did people just come over to his basement for heart surgery?

He was working at a Hospital!
Bundaberg Base Hospital, Australia.
Had fake qualifications and was ignored by registrar's.

 

[Trinity19]

He was working at a Hospital!
Bundaberg Base Hospital, Australia.
Had fake qualifications and was ignored by registrar's.

Alright well that's a lil bit better lol, I was assuming he was giving out coupons or something for buy 1 brain surgery get 2 free in his basement of something lol.

Hm, I agree he got to short of time, but we also don't know the exacts of the people he operated on. He must have been doing something around the lines of correct since I'm sure there's more than one person in the operating room that can tell if he's doing something not even close to the lines of the operation.
So it's possible that their condition was just to serious for them to survive, yes his surgeries probly decreased their chances but probably weren't the cause.

(Im just going based off of the limited information I'm given on the subject.)

 

[Ready Set Fall]

I think the death penalty should defiantly be used today and alot! It should be televised for everyone to see too. Don't say crimes wouldn't go down because it would. People who commit terrible acts deserve to die.

 

[Jay_0x]

I agree it should be brought back, however I doubt that it will. I personally believe in an eye for an eye, but for rapists, pedos, anybody like that aswell. Obviously a more humane way than torture, something quick like a firing squad, lethal injection or hanging.

I think the death penalty should defiantly be used today and alot! It should be televised for everyone to see too. Don't say crimes wouldn't go down because it would. People who commit terrible acts deserve to die.

It shouldn't be televised.

 

[hey guys]

I agree it should be brought back to some extent. If some guy has 300 years in prison, why the hell should we pay taxes to keep scum like him living.

 

[pure skillzz]

What's the goal of the death penalty? It surely is not going to bring back your loved ones. It just maybe gives a temporary satisfaction to the loved ones of whom the crime was committed against.

By using the death penalty we're just sinking down to the level of the people we're punishing. Alot of these people suffered from years of abuse and neglect, we should be giving them help, not killing them off.

 

[Trinity19]

What's the goal of the death penalty? It surely is not going to bring back your loved ones. It just maybe gives a temporary satisfaction to the loved ones of whom the crime was committed against.

By using the death penalty we're just sinking down to the level of the people we're punishing. Alot of these people suffered from years of abuse and neglect, we should be giving them help, not killing them off.

Sinking down to the level of the people

I don't see why a simple act of collection of debt is seen as depraved. If someone stole something you owned that costs say...$5,000 dollars then you would want that amount returned correct? Now say that item had sentimental value and belonged to your son who went off to college and wouldn't be home for long periods of time, then that simple $5,000 wouldn't entirely replace what that item meant but you would be able to push by. But, now replace that item with your son's life. Now killing the killer won't return everything you had but it would give some sort of return that atleast the debt was paid.

Alot of these people suffered from years of abuse and neglect, we should be giving them help, not killing them off.

It's too late for help. They should have looked for it themselves BEFORE they committed the crime. Let them realize what they did was wrong, but nothing will change from that. Let them feel sorry for what they did and beg for forgiveness. But mercy will be the downfall of society.

It shouldn't be televised.

Psh Hell yeah it should! and let's bring back ol' sparky and turn it into a sporting event, people can put bets onto whether or not they'll live.
..Obviously im being sarcastic, but it should be televised as long as there is a percentage of the population that would pay to watch it.

 

[Jay_0x]

Psh Hell yeah it should! and let's bring back ol' sparky and turn it into a sporting event, people can put bets onto whether or not they'll live.
..Obviously im being sarcastic, but it should be televised as long as there is a percentage of the population that would pay to watch it.

If they do bring it back, it won't be televised. I don't understand why anybody other than the families that it has effected would want to watch it. It's inhumane and in this day of age wouldn't happen.

 

[Trinity19]

If they do bring it back, it won't be televised. I don't understand why anybody other than the families that it has effected would want to watch it. It's inhumane and in this day of age wouldn't happen.

Well it used to be a public spectacle, and people would go to watch it so they would know justice was being served.
It's only in recent history where it's become more taboo.

 

[Jay_0x]

Well it used to be a public spectacle, and people would go to watch it so they would know justice was being served.
It's only in recent history where it's become more taboo.

It used to be. Why would you want to watch somebody you don't even know get killed? If you really wanted to you could search the internet, there's plenty of it. I don't see why you would want to though.

 

[Trinity19]

It used to be. Why would you want to watch somebody you don't even know get killed? If you really wanted to you could search the internet, there's plenty of it. I don't see why you would want to though.

I was mainly making a point that it wasn't seen as anything different or wrong. It was just normal, death was seen as an everyday thing and killing someone wasn't bad because it was serving a purpose towards justice. Hence the gallows as an example.

 

[Jay_0x]

I was mainly making a point that it wasn't seen as anything different or wrong. It was just normal, death was seen as an everyday thing and killing someone wasn't bad because it was serving a purpose towards justice. Hence the gallows as an example.

Yes, in the past. I'm making a point that nowadays it wouldn't happen on television.

 

[Trinity19]

Yes, in the past. I'm making a point that nowadays it wouldn't happen on television.

and I was simply stating my reasoning to why it should be and the changes from the past...

so now i must ask...
...are we arguing about nothing?

 

[pure skillzz]

I don't see why a simple act of collection of debt is seen as depraved.

Debt is referred to material possessions; I think the term your looking for is vengeance and revenge. That's all the death penalty is, it's just revenge. What do the loved ones collect from the death penalty? Absolutely nothing, except a temporary mental satisfaction. I'm sure you've been told this all your life, but two wrong don't make a right. To think it does is a logical fallacy.

If someone stole something you owned that costs say...$5,000 dollars then you would want that amount returned correct? Now say that item had sentimental value and belonged to your son who went off to college and wouldn't be home for long periods of time, then that simple $5,000 wouldn't entirely replace what that item meant but you would be able to push by. But, now replace that item with your son's life. Now killing the killer won't return everything you had but it would give some sort of return that atleast the debt was paid.

What a terrible analogy, you only have one life. Money and anyother material possession can be returned, a persons life cannot.

It doesn't return ANYTHING physically, if it does please share with me.

It's too late for help. They should have looked for it themselves BEFORE they committed the crime. Let them realize what they did was wrong, but nothing will change from that. Let them feel sorry for what they did and beg for forgiveness. But mercy will be the downfall of society.

Is it too late to help drug addicts? What good does realizing what you did wrong do when your life has an expiration date on it? It serves no purpose to even think about what you did wrong, and try to correct what's wrong with yourself when you know the exact date of which your death will occur, and you'll never get a chance to show the world your a changed person.

 

[Trinity19]

Debt is referred to material possessions; I think the term your looking for is vengeance and revenge. That's all the death penalty is, it's just revenge. What do the loved ones collect from the death penalty? Absolutely nothing, except a temporary mental satisfaction. I'm sure you've been told this all your life, but two wrong don't make a right. To think it does is a logical fallacy.

No I meant to use the word debt, as in a life for a life. Also, the death penalty isn't revenge it's a form of justice for society.

Well considering right and wrong don't actually exist as the same for the whole population but more towards a persons specific moral compass then it doesn't take a genius to figure out the assumption that the victims family would find their death right. So am i 'wrong' to say a right makes a right?

What a terrible analogy, you only have one life. Money and anyother material possession can be returned, a persons life cannot.

It doesn't return ANYTHING physically, if it does please share with me.

It's not a terrible analogy because it does fit the situation, your just saying I can't possible push the level of value of a human life down to the figure of some form of other possession, now while it is true that a material itself can be returned, but what about the sentimental value? (I explained this) this can't be returned leaving thus a portion of the owed debt unattainable. The simple act of paying this debt won't return everything family wants but it can give back a portion.

Is it too late to help drug addicts? What good does realizing what you did wrong do when your life has an expiration date on it? It serves no purpose to even think about what you did wrong, and try to correct what's wrong with yourself when you know the exact date of which your death will occur, and you'll never get a chance to show the world your a changed person.

I see very little need in persistence toward someone who has already committed an act of taking someones life. (Drug addicts are a different topic and thus i will keep away from them at the moment) You may want to change the person you were, but the main fact of the matter is that you committed the act while you were that person and even though your possibly changed that doesn't change the fact of what you did, it won't erase it and it shouldn't be redeemable.

 

[pure skillzz]

No I meant to use the word debt, as in a life for a life. Also, the death penalty isn't revenge it's a form of justice for society.

Debt is an agreement between two parties, saying if you give me this now then I'll return it later. You're agreeing you owe this person something back in return.

Revenge is committing an harmful act against another person who committed the same act against you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenge
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt

Well considering right and wrong don't actually exist as the same for the whole population but more towards a persons specific moral compass then it doesn't take a genius to figure out the assumption that the victims family would find their death right. So am i 'wrong' to say a right makes a right?

You're not wrong if you can justify murder, so why don't you do so.

I see very little need in persistence toward someone who has already committed an act of taking someones life.

Then why commit the same crime?

(Drug addicts are a different topic and thus i will keep away from them at the moment) You may want to change the person you were, but the main fact of the matter is that you committed the act while you were that person and even though your possibly changed that doesn't change the fact of what you did, it won't erase it and it shouldn't be redeemable.

Basically all I've heard you say this whole time is, "it's ok for one person to kill, but not for another."

Let me ask you something, is killing/murder right or wrong?

 

[Jay_0x]

and I was simply stating my reasoning to why it should be and the changes from the past...

so now i must ask...
...are we arguing about nothing?

No, I'm strongly disagreeing with you saying that it should be televised which was your original argument, as long as people pay for it? Seriously? What sort of sick people would want to pay to watch somebody die? I agree with capital punishment, but I think it should go no further than the families effected by it being able to watch.

 

[sheymyster]

In my opinion, the death penalty was never in place to be an organized source of revenge for the families involved, although alot saw it as that. I think the death penalty serves its main purpose by swiftly, justly, and efficiently removing a certain individual from society. What others get from that persons death is on them, but its applicational value holds true.

As for televising it, yes it's sick but our media grows more and more invasive in peoples personal lives every day, why not televise it, its just a human death, yes some would call it taboo but its only thought of this way because it has been kept from human view as much as possible. I believe the boat has sailed on this whole conservative media ploy, and we are sitting in this gray area of taboo one day, not the next. If we are going to say its ok to televise certain things and then slowly add a small bit more every week, why not just throw it all out there at once and get it over with, after all everyone pays for it anyways so if they don't like it, don't watch it, that simple.

 

[Trinity19]

No, I'm strongly disagreeing with you saying that it should be televised which was your original argument, as long as people pay for it? Seriously? What sort of sick people would want to pay to watch somebody die? I agree with capital punishment, but I think it should go no further than the families effected by it being able to watch.

Why would it make someone sick to want to see the justice system doing it's job? I'm not differentiating this from watching a court case.