Capital and Corporal Punishment - Drawing Lines

tl;dr on the original incoherent post...

Debates on capital punishment, corporal punishment, both, or neither.

 

I don't agree with either. (capital or corporal punishment). A 'fair jury' can also be wrong. Have you ever seen Prison Break? That's just an example. Although extreme, an innocent civilian could be convicted of something which is life-changing. Many victims of capital punishment are found to be innocent many years later, and you can't compensate someone for a death.

 

First, I would like to apologize for the incoherent original post, I was highly intoxicated. Nonetheless, my views are still the same.

Second, although I've never followed Prison Break, I'm not sure it's reasonable to justify Capital or Corporal punishment through a T.V. show.

Third, it's unfortunate about the innocent people, but I do want to note not one person sentenced to death after 1992 have had strong evidence to prove innocence, and only 10 before that. (Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent). With advancing technology, we have been able to more accurately convict people without reasonable doubt. "Many" seems like an exaggerated word considering over 1,000 people have been executed since 1972.

My personal opinion steaming from why I justify the death penalty comes from MY tax dollars going to support the convicted in prisons. Prisons should be reserved for those who commit more minor crimes such as theft. Prisons should not house killers caught in the act, or without reasonable doubt. If you have the nerve to take another ones life, then you simply should not live among us in society.

Where I can see corporal punishment being justified is for a crime such as rape or sexual assault. Send them to prison, but use corporal punishment in conjunction. Again, this could be sanctioned with overwhelming evidence, and without reasonable doubt the person is innocent.

Anyone convicted of a severe crime with reasonable doubt should be held in holding cells, or regular prisons, until proved without doubt, guilty.

 

I'm not justifying my point through a tv show. I'm just using it as an example.

I don't support the death penalty. You can't "Go back" from it. And for the murderers and such. Staying in prison in solitary is more punishment than killing them.

 

For the sake of non-opinionated debate, you support your tax dollars going to keep killers alive?

 

I'm all for the death penalty, but for God sakes. It takes sooooo fucking long for someone sentenced to death to actually get the lethal injection and it's a very expensive procedure. I think the strength of the evidence should play a role on the sentencing. It's also sort of stupid that government strives to create the most painless death possible. Take someone like Scott Peterson... why can't we give someone the slightest bit of pain for doing something terrible?

 

Problem with the death penalty is that, in the end, there will always be someone who was actually innocent. If he had been sentenced to jail for life, and 20 years later new evidence turns up...

 

# of gaurds, people, and fellow prison mates killed by those who would have received the death penalty > innocent people killed accidentally.

Facts aren't debatable.

For someone with an American flag as your avatar I would expect you to understand the concept "innocent until proven guilty". A LOT of these cases provided no physical evidence in the prosecution and they usually resort to motives such as life insurance returns. One should not have to "prove" hes innocent, the prosecutor should prove that you're guilty.

edit: Although the death penalty is an idealistic means to deal with those who have proven themselves to be evil, I don't trust the system that governs who is killed and who is not. This is why I don't find it feasible to support the death penalty.

 

people abusing children, killing in cold blood and raping will always deserve to die. the only issue with not killing the people who commit these horrendous crimes is that alot of the time they make an effort to LOOK like they have reformed in prison and often get paroled on a life sentence. the death penalty is necessary for these predators to not victimize people further, look at the rate of parolee re-offenders and try to argue that the prison system is working for these sorry excuses for human beings. I am not referring to all murderers in this way as there are plenty who maybe got caught in the heat of the moment or so called crimes of passion, a guy recently in my hometown beat a man to death... he caught the man molesting his daughter.. he doesnt deserve to die but do i think the child molesting piece of shit got what he deserved ? ABSOLUTELY. I reiterate that these strong PRO death penalty feelings are exclusive to the predatory cold blooded killers, rapists and child abusers (these people have very little to ANY reform rate). Life in prison is a suitable sentence but it hardly ever works out that way, honestly the whole paroling process needs to be revamped because its truly embarrassing how many people are re-released into the general population to just offend time and time again.

 

These days, you are guilty until proven innocent.

Someone with such a strong argument should at least have their facts straight!

 

You must understand that the parole systems in place are not to 100% rehabilitate to the "morals of society". It's impossible to do that. Not even a lie detector could detect if a person's willing to commit another crime.

Also, the death penalty should be never used for a tool of revenge for an offender.

 

I had to do a huge report about this a few years ago for school, so here is my views-

I believe capital punishment is definitely acceptable, and should be allowed. There is a fool proof way to make sure no one innocent falls through the cracks, only kill the ones who are with out a doubt guilty. That is what people don't understand. Just because you can get the death penalty for mass murder does not mean every mass murderer will get the death penalty. The death penalty should only be used when their is irrefutable evidence that the suspect is guilty. Things such as videos, pictures, or even the suspect admitting it was them who did it.

As for corporal punishment I am going to have to go with no. I do not believe people should be tortured, whipped, or beaten. Corporal punishment is inhumane, and should never be allowed.

I also believe that corporal punishment in the home like spanking should be outlawed. Spanking or slapping is unneeded, and unjust. That teaches the children nothing, except that it is okay to hit people. My whole family was raised without any type of corporal punishment in place at our house and none of us have ever gotten in trouble with the law, done drugs, or done anything bad, so it must not be needed.

 

Uhhhhh, no.

 

I agree with Justinkiller 100%.

He's said everything perfectly.

 

The constitution states no man should receive any cruel or unusual punishments. I'd consider death a cruel or unusual punishment.

Also, it's impossible to know the complete truth from within a case. That's why the juries have multiple opinions on a case. These people may not agree that some evidence is entirely irrefutable.

Using yourself as a single example for a subject does not make it a fact.

 

Cruel punishment would be beating them and torturing them for hours straight.
Unusual punishment would be making someone listen to the same jazz song for days straight.
Which of those are remotely close to a controlled, painless death that will happen one day anyways?
The death penalty has been used for thousands of years, it is not cruel or unusual, it just speeds up the process of death years.

Who says you can't prove something without a doubt?
Their is ways to prove it with todays science, so this statement is false.

No one needs to be hit, me and my siblings are not the only ones in the world not to be hit who came out good. I used myself as an example to backup the fact that corporal punishment at the household level is unneeded

 

Locking someone up in solitary confinement or even with general prison population for them to await the sweet release of death?

Not cruel at all.

 

Because all life should be defended. A person committing murder has dehumanized a person enough to kill them. The government should not be dehumanizing anyone.

Are you talking about DNA evidence? If so, DNA doesn't tell the story of the crime scene.

Also, some cases do not have a large amount of circumstantial evidence. Some cases can have a guilty rule from hearsay and a witness testimony. I didn't mean to say all cases are impossible to know the full truth.

100% incriminating evidence may not availble to a case, yet people will still like to be able to give the death penalty to a person.

I was spanked a couple times when I was young. Being spanked is not an evil thing to do. It gives clear instructions to a child when the parent disagrees. Sometimes, a time out just won't do.

Locking someone up for life is the only alternative to ensuring the public's safety from an individual. The only other option is exile but that has not been shown to be effective.

 

It doesn't have to be so "cruel" though right?