Capital Punishment

I'd like to keep this in the realm of modernity and current events, thank you.


What are your views on capital punishment? Expand it? Ban it? State's rights?

Its my view, on the very impersonal, legislative level, that this should be relegated to state's rights but regulated by a federal body of rules to ensure its justice.

Such as:
A REQUIRED genetic example of proof.
A Jural 2/3 majority.
Crime must have been committed with heinous intent.



On the personal level, I greatly support it, and I support expanding capital punishment candidates to rapists and child molesters(by which I mean actual. child. molesters. not pedophiles).

 

Unlike in the case of a gangster, bank robber, or contract killer, rapists, serial killers, and child molesters generally are posessed of an incurable mental detraction. Furthermore, why should we rehabilitate a criminal who has committed such unspeakable acts?

I can't find the story, but apparently, recently a rapist in spain was given a 3 day pass from prison. He promptly went to his hometown and taunted the mother of his victim. an hour later, she doused him in gasoline and set him on fire. he died a slow death in the hospital. bravo, I say.


You make some good points about prisoners but I am not discussing them in general.

 

I don't see why rape/molesting children merits a death sentence.

 

I'm of the opinion that some crimes are against "society" and others against "humanity" in loose terms.

Murder for gain, robbery, embezzlement, drug dealing, these are all crimes commited with a tangible end and positive (for the criminal) reward. These are crimes against society, because even if undertaken against a single person, that person's identity is irrelevant to the crime. Except for the most heinous of crimes in this category, these criminals are largely and without much exception, rational thinking people who had a necessity to carry out the crime. Even for an organized mob boss, he may not have had to carry out his crimes, but he probably wasn't committing the crime with the aim of suffering for the people affected by his crimes.

However, rape, serial/random murder, molestation, these are all crimes committed with an end of enjoyment by the criminal, and suffering for the victim. These criminals do not deserve rehabilitation, because often, the criminals are unchangeing in their mutations.

I don't know how much sense that made, so:

Bank robbers don't rob a bank with the intention of making the people whose money they stole go hungry and/or otherwise suffer.

Rapists rape someone with every intention of creating enjoyment for themselves at someone elses expense.

Therefore, why should we house, feed, rehabilitate, or even treat humanely people who have no regard for humanity and would not accord us the same treatment?


Oh, and when I say child molester, I don't mean the 8th grade teachers having sex with their students.

 

But the criminals will not accord you the same treatment in any case, whether they be rapists or bank robbers.

Why does intent matter when prosecuting criminals?

 

Personally, I have Satanic views/philosophies.. For those of you plump with knowledge in theology, you probabally know why and where I'm going with this.

You guys bring up some interesting and very valid points, but personally, an "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" is where I am. You say that rapists, murderers etc. who purposefully go out with an intent to harm other at there own gain should not be served a punishment beyond all reckoning? Well I say, we should put them to work, not be given a second chance; they should be suffering for the rest of there life. The reasoning, simple: If the guy next door decides he's going to rape your wife and make you watch, what do you think he should get? Life and out with good behavious in 10-15? I've seen it happen often; this guy just fucked up your mind and your wife's for the rest of there miserable lives. Rapists, serial killers, child molesters etc. should be forced to work in the worst conditions/jobs there are for the rest of there life. At least make some use of them.

But nooo, we as humans have to have feelings, emotions, and all this bullshit.

Personally, when it comes to these sorry, pathetic, wastes of air, I have no pity, feelings, or anything else for them; because personally, I don't think they we're thinking about that when they were beating and senselesly raping your wife in front of your helpless eyes..

Just my view..

 

A life for a life, in my eyes.

"...there are some defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say that society has no right to keep the murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but the duty to act in self defense to protect the innocent." -Clark County, Indiana Prosecuting Attorney

 

The average bank robber may not invite you into his home and give you dinner, but I doubt he would revel in your intense suffering.

Intent matters because it separates the lines between deterrence, rehabilitation, and punishment.

 

How does intent separate those lines? What ARE the lines?

 

The lines can be drawn only from our logical interpretation of the crimes severity.

Which I believe to be that crimes such as rape, child molestation, and random/serial murder are all committed by criminals that generally are unwarranting of rehabilitation.

 

You said that intent "separates the lines between deterrence, rehabilitation, and punishment". Deterrence, rehabilitation, and punishment are three separate functions of the prison system. What are the lines between them, and how does intent separate these lines? What does "separating the lines" actually mean?