Capital Punishment.

ArcPoint · Mar 1, 2009

Should any crime ever be punishable by death?

I would argue that the current form of execution is not "cruel and unusual," so it would not violate the 8th amendment. The injection doesn't inflict a large amount of pain - I'll agree that things like being beheaded, and the electric chair did though. But current methods are not "unusual" in the sense that it is neither arbitrary nor out of the ordinary, it isn't cruel in the sense that it prolongs death or inflicts large amounts of pain on the victim.

Does this violate a person's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" or does that right end when that person gets convicted of a crime (or crimes) that is severe enough to warrant capital punishment?

M.K · Mar 1, 2009

Yes.

If you take a life, you should give your life.
As you said, the lethal injection is not painful. It is not as painful as what you inflicted on the person YOU killed, and that is a given.

They HAD their chance at "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." and they gave it up by taking away ANOTHER PERSON's chance at life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Aesir · Mar 1, 2009

ArcPoint said:
Should any crime ever be punishable by death?

I would argue that the current form of execution is not "cruel and unusual," so it would not violate the 8th amendment. The injection doesn't inflict a large amount of pain - I'll agree that things like being beheaded, and the electric chair did though. But current methods are not "unusual" in the sense that it is neither arbitrary nor out of the ordinary, it isn't cruel in the sense that it prolongs death or inflicts large amounts of pain on the victim.

Lethal Injection proceedure follows like this (United States):

1.Sodium thiopental - Anesthetic usually can render a person unconscience fairly quickly.

2.Pancuronium - A very quick muscle relaxer, paralyzes the muscular system which includes the Diaphragm.

3.Potassium chloride - Stops the heart.

Before I continue I'm not an expert

The biggest appeal to lethal injection is it carries this reputation as being a humane death. (whatever that means.) Unfortunately this isn't the case sometimes, with the use of Sodium Thiopental there's a good chance the criminal might wake up and become aware. Now how is this a problem you might ask? well it undermines it's appeal, the "humane" aspect of this treatment largely depends on this drug working if it isn't working then it's really no different then frying them in a chair.

But lets assume everything is flawless and it works like a charm does that mean the criminal felt nothing? well there's some dissenting opinion on that.

Conclusions

We were able to analyze only a limited number of executions. However, our findings suggest that current lethal injection protocols may not reliably effect death through the mechanisms intended, indicating a failure of design and implementation. If thiopental and potassium chloride fail to cause anesthesia and cardiac arrest, potentially aware inmates could die through pancuronium-induced asphyxiation. Thus the conventional view of lethal injection leading to an invariably peaceful and painless death is questionable.

Source

Does this violate a person's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?" or does that right end when that person gets convicted of a crime (or crimes) that is severe enough to warrant capital punishment?

I kind of touched on this above, however if a lethal injection does indeed cause physical harm to a person it does violate their 8th amendment right, thus I think this debate needs to clarify whether or not said practice is indeed causing harm.

Because if it is the answer is obvious and the practice is unconstitutional.

Vorguen · Mar 2, 2009

This reminds me of what I heard in my Junior High debate on Capital Punishment.
"How can you kill people who killed people to prove that killing is wrong?"

How can you see that the death penalty does not violate the 8th ammendment? Death is not cruel? Death is not unjust? If I remember correctly the government is founded on principles of, as stated before, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

I am pretty sure killing someone is depriving them of all three. A criminal is still a citizen of the United States. A criminal does not loses his rights under the constitution, that is why mistreating criminals in prison is a serious offence. Giving a criminal the Death Penalty is directly violating the 8th Amendment.

:mad: · Mar 2, 2009

Vorguen said:
This reminds me of what I heard in my Junior High debate on Capital Punishment.
"How can you kill people who killed people to prove that killing is wrong?"

How can you see that the death penalty does not violate the 8th ammendment? Death is not cruel? Death is not unjust? If I remember correctly the government is founded on principles of, as stated before, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

I am pretty sure killing someone is depriving them of all three. A criminal is still a citizen of the United States. A criminal does not loses his rights under the constitution, that is why mistreating criminals in prison is a serious offence. Giving a criminal the Death Penalty is directly violating the 8th Amendment.

You're absolutely right, but when it comes down to a matter of ethics, I can't actually see us the United States Government allow a murderer to live. Suppose he was convicted for 14 counts of manslaughter. Serial killers are a strange breed, they feel no remorse for killing, and victim's familys get no closure. The only think they see fit is to take that killer's life in exchange for the 14 he took. Now, not only is his entire family embarassed, but he's dead.

I can't say I approve of killing people, I'd actually prefer every state remove the death penalty. But if the founding fathers were here today, they'd probably agree. This is only an educated guess, don't jump on it from the start.

Overall, it really isn't right to kill someone, just because they killed someone. There's always the classic insanity plea, the accused could have a mental illness, or some other issue that prevented them from understanding what they were doing. I don't think it's fair that they be sentenced to death by lethal injection. Any other opinions?

Vorguen · Mar 2, 2009

What about people who were killed and then found innocent after the government carried out their sentence? This has happened before. Call me old fashioned, but I have a very strong regard for another human's life. Killing is inexcusable, by anybody.

If someone is guilty of killing, then they need to be put away appropriately. If there is even a fraction of a possibility that someone who is sentenced to death is not guilty of the crime they are being convicted of, then there is absolutely no measureable way I can agree that killing them is ethical, moral, legal, or constitutional.

How can you take a family's closure over someone else's life? Yeah, this person might have been guilty of murder, but saying that we should kill them back so the family can get closure is the most unreasonable argument for allowing the Death Penalty.

Aorist · Mar 2, 2009

Not to mention that the death penalty has been proven to be less economically viable than life imprisonment.*

Frankly, I'm completely opposed to the death penalty - justifying killing one person for killing another, or even more than one, is ridiculous. And there's no chance of rehabilitation at all on a dead person.

*http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

:mad: · Mar 2, 2009

Vorguen said:
What about people who were killed and then found innocent after the government carried out their sentence? This has happened before. Call me old fashioned, but I have a very strong regard for another human's life. Killing is inexcusable, by anybody.

If someone is guilty of killing, then they need to be put away appropriately. If there is even a fraction of a possibility that someone who is sentenced to death is not guilty of the crime they are being convicted of, then there is absolutely no measureable way I can agree that killing them is ethical, moral, legal, or constitutional.

How can you take a family's closure over someone else's life? Yeah, this person might have been guilty of murder, but saying that we should kill them back so the family can get closure is the most unreasonable argument for allowing the Death Penalty.

I'm giving both sides of the story here, I'm against the death penalty as well.

The family's closure was not meant to be used as an excuse to murder someone, it was only there to help get a better understanding of how this person hurt that family. The best solution is to just lock this person up for life. I don't see any reason why he needs to be killed. That's what I'm saying.

If someone's convicted of multiple murders, forget parole. That judge needs to give a life sentence.

Vorguen · Mar 2, 2009

There are many people who commit worse crimes than murder. Torture? Mutilation? ****?

These crimes (arguably) can be much more harmful than murder. I have known victims of crimes such as these who often wished nothing but to have been killed instead. Why are these people serving smaller sentences and being let free?

And it is true, Capital Punishment is more expensive than life imprisonment with all the appeals and court fees and expensive trials.

:mad: · Mar 2, 2009

When discussing murder, you can assume that there was some form of torture before they were killed. By bringing this up, are you saying these people deserve to die?

Well that's awful. This really is a terrible method of punishing criminals.

RazeveX · Mar 2, 2009

Seems like everyone's already arguing anti-capital punishment, but I guess my opinion can't hurt, right?

Let's get to the moral aspects; something that can't be sourced.

What about the poor families and relatives of those who have been punished with the death penalty? If they were kept alive, they could possibly be visited; even if they couldn't be, their family would probably feel much better knowing their loved ones are alive somewhere.

How can you justify killing someone for killing others?
One man once said "An eye for an eye".
However, a much wiser and well endowed man once said that "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind".

Really; if you want someone to die, and act upon it, then how can you say you are any better than the murderer which you are punishing so harshly?

Ok, now that that's done with, here's some overwhelming statistics and evidence.

I'm not American, so I can't use your fancy consitutional amendments (

).
However, if we're talking about rights, then how about this:

Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights clearly states:
“Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life. ” A similar worded statement can be found in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Don't have a link, but I'm sure you could google it for accuracy.

So if these old rules stand for anything, I guess I've got a pretty good argument, huh?

If we're talking about trends, then how about this?

The South accounts for over 80% of the US' executions and still has the highest number of homicides: are southerners genetically evil or is the death penalty a factor that increases the number of homicides?

(source)

Do these correlations tickle your fancy? No?

Well how about some economical factors?

On the whole, it is actually cheaper to keep these inmates alive.

For a number of reasons, read this. If you can't be bothered, here's an extract:

“The additional cost of confining an inmate to death row, as compared to the maximum security prisons where those sentenced to life without possibility of parole ordinarily serve their sentences, is $90,000 per year per inmate. With California’s current death row population of 670, that accounts for $63.3 million annually.”

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

If that's not enough...meh.

yummynbeefy · Mar 7, 2009

honestly why dont they just go back to the guilotine its more efficient, more fun to watch, and quicker

if they made someone die a horrible death then they should die a horrible death not a humane death

plus your ruining not only that persons life when you kill 1 person your ruining more than just the person that died but your also ruining everyone that they have surrounded theirselves with

bottom line im fully in favor of the death penalty because of all the scum in the world and its cheaper than holding someone in prison until they die

:mad: · Mar 7, 2009

yummynbeefy said:
honestly why dont they just go back to the guilotine its more efficient, more fun to watch, and quicker

if they made someone die a horrible death then they should die a horrible death not a quote-unquote "humane" death

bottom line im fully in favor of the death penalty because of all the scum in the world and its cheaper than holding someone in prison until they die

That's possibly the most inhumane form of punishment possible. Suppose you were falsely imprisoned and you were framed by your mother because she didn't like you. It's not exactly fair that you die because you were at the wrong place at the wrong time. Under no circumstances is it ever right to harm another, regardless of that they do. Anyone can be considered scum for certain traits that they bring to this world.

An eye for an eye, we're starting this whole thing up again?

Actually, it's not cheaper than holding someone in before they die. Most killers usually die of a heart attack or something before actually finishing their sentence. Some get shanked, and others are fairly old and just die in 15 or 30 years. Did you read any articles these kind people posted?

Oh, and please, this is the proving grounds. Proper spelling, capitalization, and punctuation are a must.

Spire · Mar 8, 2009

Capital Punishment is necessary in this world, as I feel it a means of balancing that whose pillars were shook by the crime preceding the calling of the punishment. It coincides with many ideals by many types of people. For instance, those who believe in some sort of universal afterlife might not want the murderer of their hypothetical son, wife, etc. to reach this realm of existence where they sent their beloved victim to before they, themselves could get there to potentially protect him/her or what have you. Of course, most who believe in this type of afterlife discern two different realms, one where the pure go, and one where the impure go.

That is just one of many, many, many examples of why some may be against Capital Punishment, but in the world of reasoning - the life that is the proving grounds - such unproven ideals are not, and should not be taken into account when formulating laws and regulations for such matters as Capital Punishment, but rather what is right in the eyes of the people in regards to this material world.

But that sparks the debate between Science and Religion, as do so many things, and furthermore, between what is right and wrong, when ultimately, all lie in the individual's perception and understanding of the world, and whether or not they choose to reason and come to terms with all they experience.

Aorist · Mar 9, 2009

Can you give a reason for capital punishment beyond "balance"? Because that seems rather arbitrary to me.

ArcPoint · Mar 9, 2009

Why would it be arbitrary? If you do action X, then you get punishment Y. The question is whether or not it's ethical. It doesn't violate the Constitution since it isn't a "Cruel" death. (Unless of course, some freak accident and the sedatives/other precautions fail).

Aorist · Mar 10, 2009

I think that there is some miscommunication occurring on both sides. What I said was in response to Spire III, specifically:

Spire III said:
Capital Punishment is necessary in this world, as I feel it a means of balancing that whose pillars were shook by the crime preceding the calling of the punishment.

I do not deny that for destructive actions there should be punishment, to deter people from performing these actions. I was questioning Spire's assertion that, as I interpreted it, because people have killed (or whatever, I'm not familiar with which crimes are punishable by death under the American legal system), the murderer must be killed, merely because of some metaphysical "balance".

RazeveX · Mar 10, 2009

I guess it should have known that so many people think that killing murderers is a necessity.
I mean, I could never see why Dexter was so popular; I always thought it was utter s**t. But now...

One person said that "If a murderer makes one suffer an inhumane death, they too should suffer an inhumane death". So, a humane death wasn't severe enough punishment for them. Where does it stop? How far does it go? If that person killed someone with a meat cleaver, should they be killed with a meat cleaver? If they shouted "DIE, *****, DIE" as they killed them, should the same be done to the murderer?

Sure, it sounds crazy; but it's my way of making the point that there's no reason crimes should be punished in the way they occurred.

Also, people are ignoring "REHABILITATION." I mean, I guess we could just kill everyone for any crime and end up with the perfect race, right? (wrong, if the sarcasm wasn't conveyed)

We would be taking away the lives of those who may very well have gone on to be moral citizens, to teach others of their wrongs, or for all we know, cure a cancer or two.

Life is precious; we mustn't waste it.

CT Chia · Mar 10, 2009

This is a very sensitive subject. In one way I would believe such an act is ok. Many argue that it goes against their right for "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," but these people have violated this right for others, who in most cases, didn't do anything wrong themselves.

But then I continued to think about it, and knowingly removing a life so wrong. I know this is personal opinion, but this is clearly a touchy subject. Are we no better than the killer?

While I don't think someone should be subjected to capital punishment for perhaps one murder, someone like a serial killer is on a different level. There's no guarantee these people will stop what they did if they are ever released back into the community. What would the point be of keeping them in jail for life? It costs us money, takes up space, and is unenjoyable for that person (though they should be punished) and is perhaps breaking their right of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Perhaps lethal injection would indeed be a more humane thing to do than keeping them jailed for life.

Aorist · Mar 10, 2009

ChiboSempai said:
What would the point be of keeping them in jail for life? It costs us money, takes up space, and is unenjoyable for that person (though they should be punished) and is perhaps breaking their right of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Perhaps lethal injection would indeed be a more humane thing to do than keeping them jailed for life.

At the very least, according to a source I found on the issue, it's cheaper to imprison someone for life than it is to employ capital punishment.

Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Aesir · Mar 10, 2009

ArcPoint said:
Why would it be arbitrary? If you do action X, then you get punishment Y. The question is whether or not it's ethical. It doesn't violate the Constitution since it isn't a "Cruel" death. (Unless of course, some freak accident and the sedatives/other precautions fail).

Explain this, what makes you think it isn't a cruel death? Look at my first post in this thread and you'll see the many issues with Lethal Injection. Sodium Thiopental is used to sedate the criminal, however it's been shown that in many instances the criminal is under dosed. The problem with this is they'll be awake for the second drug which renders their muscles paralyzed. To give you an idea imagine you were suffocating and you couldn't move or show any signs of awareness.

How is that not torture?

Furthermore back to my first post I linked to a study that showed many of the patients still do feel pain even if the procedure runs flawlessly they're still being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

Sorry but it does violate the constitution.

RDK · Mar 10, 2009

ChiboSempai said:
While I don't think someone should be subjected to capital punishment for perhaps one murder, someone like a serial killer is on a different level. There's no guarantee these people will stop what they did if they are ever released back into the community.

Who's to say that a one-time murderer won't go right back to murdering after he's released? You're resting on an arbitrary number to determine whether or not the person is truly deserving of capital punishment.

Honestly, if someone capable of making rational decisions decides to infringe upon another person's rights and murder them, I have no qualms about returning the favor. If there's no punishment for crimes like these, then people are going to realize that there's no incentive to not commit crimes.

As for the actual mode of execution--I don't get the point of the electric chair, or lethal injection. Those seem like unnecessary ways to off someone. Whatever happened to the good old firing squad?

ArcPoint · Mar 10, 2009

Aesir said:
Explain this, what makes you think it isn't a cruel death? Look at my first post in this thread and you'll see the many issues with Lethal Injection. Sodium Thiopental is used to sedate the criminal, however it's been shown that in many instances the criminal is under dosed. The problem with this is they'll be awake for the second drug which renders their muscles paralyzed. To give you an idea imagine you were suffocating and you couldn't move or show any signs of awareness.

How is that not torture?

Furthermore back to my first post I linked to a study that showed many of the patients still do feel pain even if the procedure runs flawlessly they're still being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.

Sorry but it does violate the constitution.

Thas is a question of process, we simply need to refine the process, make it more efficient and as minimal pain as possible. For example, we could increase the dosage (We're not worried about an overdose, are we? xD) in order to ensure that they're not conscious for the other things. For example, sleeping pills might work, painless death, just knowing that you're going to die soon might be weird.

Aorist · Mar 11, 2009

RDK said:
Honestly, if someone capable of making rational decisions decides to infringe upon another person's rights and murder them, I have no qualms about returning the favor. If there's no punishment for crimes like these, then people are going to realize that there's no incentive to not commit crimes.

As for the actual mode of execution--I don't get the point of the electric chair, or lethal injection. Those seem like unnecessary ways to off someone. Whatever happened to the good old firing squad?

I'm not sure whether you believe this, or you are just trying to promote discussion because you're from DH. However, I'm going to assume that you are.

Firstly, I question that the death penalty is that much more of an incentive to not murder than life imprisonment. As a matter of fact, statistics seem to show the opposite.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-1996-2007

Even on a more global scale, there seems to be almost no correlation between the death penalty and murder rates. Of course, I haven't graphed it or anything, and I haven't looked through the entirety. But of the lowest 20 murder rating countries, 12 had abolished the death penalty, 8 had not. Of the highest 20, 9 had abolished it, 8 continue it, 2 with question marks. I can't be bothered to compare fractions of people that had the death penalty across each one, but of the 223 listed, 110 had abolished the death penalty (or abolished it bar in wartime) and 59 have the death penalty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation

So, yeah, the death penalty isn't really more of an incentive to not commit crimes than life imprisonment.

The firing squad is of course not used because it is not humane.

I am of the opinion that a person's right to life should not be forfeited merely because they disregarded another's. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and whatnot. However, that in itself is a moral issue, which is notoriously difficult to debate about without skilled philosophers. However, there are several problems that have been mentioned before.

Cost
Life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty. There's no economic reason to do it

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Rehabilitation
It's fairly impossible to rehabilitate a dead person. Even the worst, most-hardened criminal has a chance of rehabilitation if alive. Certainly not so if they're dead.

Mistaken Identity
This is a big one. Huge one. If you wrongly identify the criminal, then carry out their death penalty, the best you can do if you find out they're innocent is shuffle your feet nervously and apologise to the families, maybe compensate them. If they're innocent, you can free an innocent person.

Aesir · Mar 11, 2009

ArcPoint said:
Thas is a question of process, we simply need to refine the process, make it more efficient and as minimal pain as possible. For example, we could increase the dosage (We're not worried about an overdose, are we? xD) in order to ensure that they're not conscious for the other things. For example, sleeping pills might work, painless death, just knowing that you're going to die soon might be weird.

Even with a proper dosage as pointed out in my first post, the patient still feels pain. There's also the question of whether or not the death penalty is an effective incentive to not murder.

I'm also going to assume you were joking about using sleeping pills, be serious here please.

RDK · Mar 11, 2009

Aorist said:
I'm not sure whether you believe this, or you are just trying to promote discussion because you're from DH. However, I'm going to assume that you are.

A little bit of both, to be quite honest. But there needs to be some differing opinions in here anyway, so some Devil's Advocate never hurt anybody.

Firstly, I question that the death penalty is that much more of an incentive to not murder than life imprisonment. As a matter of fact, statistics seem to show the opposite.

Even on a more global scale, there seems to be almost no correlation between the death penalty and murder rates. Of course, I haven't graphed it or anything, and I haven't looked through the entirety. But of the lowest 20 murder rating countries, 12 had abolished the death penalty, 8 had not. Of the highest 20, 9 had abolished it, 8 continue it, 2 with question marks. I can't be bothered to compare fractions of people that had the death penalty across each one, but of the 223 listed, 110 had abolished the death penalty (or abolished it bar in wartime) and 59 have the death penalty.

I beg to differ. Here's a graph with information from the Bureau of Criminal Justice:

"From 1995 to 2000," "executions averaged 71 per year, a 21,000 percent increase over the 1966-1980 period. The murder rate dropped from a high of 10.2 (per 100,000) in 1980 to 5.7 in 1999 -- a 44 percent reduction. The murder rate is now at its lowest level since 1966. "

And let's not forget that murderers can still murder even in prison. You're accomplishing nothing by keeping them incapacitated for the rest of their life, which I would consider far more cruel and unusual than execution. Given the choice of life in prison or the electric chair, which would you choose?

The firing squad is of course not used because it is not humane.

...somehow lethal injection, with all its risks, is considered more human than a firing squad? Explain that reasoning.

I am of the opinion that a person's right to life should not be forfeited merely because they disregarded another's. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and whatnot. However, that in itself is a moral issue, which is notoriously difficult to debate about without skilled philosophers. However, there are several problems that have been mentioned before.

If someone makes a rational decision to end another human being's life, then they automatically forfeit their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by virtue of taking someone else's away.

Philosophical and moral implications aside, I doubt you would advocate letting people go unpunished for their actions.

Cost
Life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty. There's no economic reason to do it

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Rehabilitation
It's fairly impossible to rehabilitate a dead person. Even the worst, most-hardened criminal has a chance of rehabilitation if alive. Certainly not so if they're dead.

Mistaken Identity
This is a big one. Huge one. If you wrongly identify the criminal, then carry out their death penalty, the best you can do if you find out they're innocent is shuffle your feet nervously and apologise to the families, maybe compensate them. If they're innocent, you can free an innocent person.

Obviously all these things are adverse effects of a corrupt system that could and should very well be fixed. This has less to do with the practical pros and cons of capital punishment and more to do with realizing how convoluted and inane our judiciary system is.

Applying the same reasoning to government would equate to something like getting rid of all authority whatsoever because executive power can be abused. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Aorist · Mar 12, 2009

I disagree with your inclusion of that graph as evidence.

1) It's only the trend in one country - the US. There's absolutely nothing to compare it with. Perhaps the world just got more violent at that time, and it was coincidence. We don't know.
2) The amount of executions is tiny. It's hard to draw a conclusion from such a sample.

But most importantly, it doesn't contrast with my claim. I posited that capital punishment is not that much more of a deterrent than life imprisonment. The homicide rates in a wide variety of countries had no signifiance variance whether there was capital punishment or life imprisonment as the penalty for murder.

Yours, though, merely demonstrates that the more often executions occur, the less like murder is to happen, and vice versa. I never questioned that executions were a deterrent to murder, which is all that your graph demonstrates. It's obvious that it would be. However, there's no comparison with life imprisonment at all.

Your evidence is tangential to the topic.

RDK said:
And let's not forget that murderers can still murder even in prison. You're accomplishing nothing by keeping them incapacitated for the rest of their life, which I would consider far more cruel and unusual than execution. Given the choice of life in prison or the electric chair, which would you choose?

You're assuming that murderers are murdering machines. They're not. The majority of murderers do so in passion - they just can't take their wife cheating on them, or their ****ed boss just won't stop forcing them to work overtime, or whatever reason they have for it. Not many murderers are serial killers.

In answer to your question, I would prefer life imprisonment. Better a life, than no life at all. And that's what we're doing by keeping them in prison. Preserving the sanctity of life.

Finally, what about the incurably insane? People who have to be kept in asylums for their safety? Would you want them to be killed, rather than kept in what is effectively a prison for the rest of their life? Which would be the more cruel thing to do?

RDK said:
If someone makes a rational decision to end another human being's life, then they automatically forfeit their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by virtue of taking someone else's away.

Philosophical and moral implications aside, I doubt you would advocate letting people go unpunished for their actions.

You aren't explaining why, though. What's wrong with a lesser punishment? Why do they have to be killed?

Of course I don't advocate no punishment. Without punishment there would be no deterrent for committing those actions in the first place. I'm merely questioning what that punishment has to be.

RDK said:
Aorist said:

Cost
Life imprisonment is cheaper than the death penalty. There's no economic reason to do it

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Rehabilitation
It's fairly impossible to rehabilitate a dead person. Even the worst, most-hardened criminal has a chance of rehabilitation if alive. Certainly not so if they're dead.

Mistaken Identity
This is a big one. Huge one. If you wrongly identify the criminal, then carry out their death penalty, the best you can do if you find out they're innocent is shuffle your feet nervously and apologise to the families, maybe compensate them. If they're innocent, you can free an innocent person.

Click to expand...

Obviously all these things are adverse effects of a corrupt system that could and should very well be fixed. This has less to do with the practical pros and cons of capital punishment and more to do with realizing how convoluted and inane our judiciary system is.

Applying the same reasoning to government would equate to something like getting rid of all authority whatsoever because executive power can be abused. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

For starters, the possibility of rehabilitation on the living and the impossibility of rehabilitation on the dead is not an "adverse effect of a corrupt system", unless you count the lack of necromancy today as a problem. It's a real issue, and as it was not attacked by you I do not need to defend it further.

Mistaken identity is always a problem, regardless of the system. We'd need to have an utterly perfect judiciary system, evidentiary system, everything. It's something that can't be fixed short of that. It is the permanent nature of death that provides a problem in our current system, so at least until Minority Report becomes realised it's a problem that has to be considered when addressing the flaws of capital punishment.

The cost, well, you may have a point there. That's a problem with our current system, and it could easily be fixed within the foreseeable future. However, in the light of everything else, I don't see why it should be fixed.

ArcPoint · Mar 18, 2009

Aorist said:
I disagree with your inclusion of that graph as evidence.

1) It's only the trend in one country - the US. There's absolutely nothing to compare it with. Perhaps the world just got more violent at that time, and it was coincidence. We don't know.
2) The amount of executions is tiny. It's hard to draw a conclusion from such a sample.

But most importantly, it doesn't contrast with my claim. I posited that capital punishment is not that much more of a deterrent than life imprisonment. The homicide rates in a wide variety of countries had no signifiance variance whether there was capital punishment or life imprisonment as the penalty for murder.

Yours, though, merely demonstrates that the more often executions occur, the less like murder is to happen, and vice versa. I never questioned that executions were a deterrent to murder, which is all that your graph demonstrates. It's obvious that it would be. However, there's no comparison with life imprisonment at all.

Your evidence is tangential to the topic.

Trends in countries are actually quite contrasting. There are simply more factors than punishment.

Aorist said:
You're assuming that murderers are murdering machines. They're not. The majority of murderers do so in passion - they just can't take their wife cheating on them, or their ****ed boss just won't stop forcing them to work overtime, or whatever reason they have for it. Not many murderers are serial killers.

No, the majority of murders are not committed that way. According to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#relate , the majority of murders among males (Which compromises the majority of murders) are caused by STRANGERS. While not a lot are serial killers, they do not do so in passion. Most are taking a life by rational thought. Not out of the "in the moment" stuff, while it happens, it does not make up the majority as you said.

Aorist said:
In answer to your question, I would prefer life imprisonment. Better a life, than no life at all. And that's what we're doing by keeping them in prison. Preserving the sanctity of life.

While they wallow in the guilt of their murder? Unless they're indifferent about it, in which case they're probably fine with taking another life in prison. How are we preserving the sanctity of life when people end it in prison?

Aorist said:
Finally, what about the incurably insane? People who have to be kept in asylums for their safety? Would you want them to be killed, rather than kept in what is effectively a prison for the rest of their life? Which would be the more cruel thing to do?

Only, the incurably insane haven't done anything wrong. No need to punish acts that haven't been committed. But yes, it would be horridly unjustified to kill people that haven't done anything wrong in the stead of putting them in something like a prison.

Aorist said:
You aren't explaining why, though. What's wrong with a lesser punishment? Why do they have to be killed?

Of course I don't advocate no punishment. Without punishment there would be no deterrent for committing those actions in the first place. I'm merely questioning what that punishment has to be.

Because they have unlawfully taken away someone's (or multiple people's) right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, I don't understand why his own life ought to be cherished. It is a fact that the harder the punishment, the more the deterrent. For example, people would be less inclined to steal something if they got their hands cut off, versus them just having to give the item back with a small fine. Obviously the difference between life in prison and being killed aren't as differed as my example, but it still gets my point across.

Aorist said:
For starters, the possibility of rehabilitation on the living and the impossibility of rehabilitation on the dead is not an "adverse effect of a corrupt system", unless you count the lack of necromancy today as a problem. It's a real issue, and as it was not attacked by you I do not need to defend it further.

According to http://www.citizensinc.org/parolestatistics.html people who have been to jail, go on parole have a decent chance (1 in 4) of committing violent crimes, including murder. So people that have been convicted of a crime are relatively likely to commit another violent crimes. Where is this rehabilitation? Should we spend MORE taxpayer money on rehabilitation clinics within jails?

Aorist said:
Mistaken identity is always a problem, regardless of the system. We'd need to have an utterly perfect judiciary system, evidentiary system, everything. It's something that can't be fixed short of that. It is the permanent nature of death that provides a problem in our current system, so at least until Minority Report becomes realised it's a problem that has to be considered when addressing the flaws of capital punishment.

This is always a valid concern. This is why there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the person that committed said crimes.

Aorist · Mar 19, 2009

Arcpoint said:
Trends in countries are actually quite contrasting. There are simply more factors than punishment.

True. But the largeness of the sample size should account for that. Unless you discover a trend other than a null result in an analysis of all of them, we'll have to go with my analysis of the 40 drawn from both extremes of the table.

Arcpoint said:
No, the majority of murders are not committed that way. According to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_c.htm#relate , the majority of murders among males (Which compromises the majority of murders) are caused by STRANGERS. While not a lot are serial killers, they do not do so in passion. Most are taking a life by rational thought. Not out of the "in the moment" stuff, while it happens, it does not make up the majority as you said.

Yeah, did you actually read that link that you posted? It was "violent victimisation", which isn't just murder. It covers other crimes, such as robbery, assault and so on, which aren't all punishable by the death penalty. Furthermore, robbery would definitely occur more on strangers - robbing from someone you know is just silly.

Now, look down a bit, two paragraphs after the dot points. It says:

Arcpoint said:
For murder victims, 43% were related to or acquainted with their assailants; 14% of victims were murdered by strangers, while 43% of victims had an unknown relationship to their murderer in 2002.

Two thirds of murders of children under the age of 5 were committed by a parent or other family member.

43% out of the 57% of people they knew the connection to were related to or acquainted with their assailants. Quite a significant chunk, no?

Arcpoint said:
While they wallow in the guilt of their murder? Unless they're indifferent about it, in which case they're probably fine with taking another life in prison. How are we preserving the sanctity of life when people end it in prison?

I still maintain what I said. Better a life than no life at all. Even if you're wracked with guilt during it. However, bear in mind that even the most compassionate of people aren't going to be wracked with guilt all of the time. They'll have periods where they forget and such.

Now, you seem to be stuck on this believing that people in prison are going to commit murder again while inside there.

Here is the statistics for murder in jails: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/shsplj.htm

And out of jails: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

Notice something? The murder rate in prison is actually lower than out of prison. Weird stuff, eh?

Only, the incurably insane haven't done anything wrong. No need to punish acts that haven't been committed. But yes, it would be horridly unjustified to kill people that haven't done anything wrong in the stead of putting them in something like a prison.

You misunderstand the point of the question. I was attacking RDK's assertion that life imprisonment is more cruel and unusual than death. You clearly agree with me on this - that it is not. Thanks for the solidarity.

Arcpoint said:
Because they have unlawfully taken away someone's (or multiple people's) right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, I don't understand why his own life ought to be cherished. It is a fact that the harder the punishment, the more the deterrent. For example, people would be less inclined to steal something if they got their hands cut off, versus them just having to give the item back with a small fine. Obviously the difference between life in prison and being killed aren't as differed as my example, but it still gets my point across.

Because if you kill someone for killing, what makes you better than they are? What makes you immune to being killed for the same thing? You're doing it for punishment? I'm sure the murderer thought so too. (Note: Not actually you. General you)

And the difference between capital punishment and life imprisonment is negligible at best, as evidenced by my analysis of countries above. If you persist in not trusting that, perhaps you could look at my link to the statistics across States of the USA for capital punishment v. life imprisonment (Relinked here: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/det...alty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates and http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-1996-2007 )

Arcpoint said:
According to http://www.citizensinc.org/parolestatistics.html people who have been to jail, go on parole have a decent chance (1 in 4) of committing violent crimes, including murder. So people that have been convicted of a crime are relatively likely to commit another violent crimes. Where is this rehabilitation? Should we spend MORE taxpayer money on rehabilitation clinics within jails?

Yeah, your link was too confusing and vague. It also included prisoners rearrested for other crimes and even technical stuff, such as missing an appointment with their parole officer. So, I went and had a look at the Bureau of Justice again, and guess what I found.

Within 3 years, ... and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.

Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm

Significantly less than 25%. I think a 98.8% success rate is pretty good.

Arcpoint said:
This is always a valid concern. This is why there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this is the person that committed said crimes.

Well, yeah. But even then, it's not perfect. Look here: http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/issues/deathpenalty/executinginnocent/

That's up to 39 people who could still be living today.

RDK · Mar 19, 2009

Aorist said:
1) It's only the trend in one country - the US. There's absolutely nothing to compare it with. Perhaps the world just got more violent at that time, and it was coincidence. We don't know.

Irrelevant. We are discussing whether or not capital punishment falls under the description of cruel and unusual punishment, which would violate our 8th amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States. Refer to the OP.

2) The amount of executions is tiny. It's hard to draw a conclusion from such a sample.

I don't really consider 200 deaths as "tiny". And as for the other half of the graph, it's supposed to be tiny in comparison--it's showing the effects of executions on crime (specifically murder).

But most importantly, it doesn't contrast with my claim. I posited that capital punishment is not that much more of a deterrent than life imprisonment. The homicide rates in a wide variety of countries had no signifiance variance whether there was capital punishment or life imprisonment as the penalty for murder.

In this graph, it's assumed to be the case, as the logical alternative to capital punishment is life in prison.

You're assuming that murderers are murdering machines. They're not. The majority of murderers do so in passion

If you're going to run with this, please provide some statistics, because even if you were a murderer and knew this from actual experience, you still wouldn't represent all murderers everywhere.

In answer to your question, I would prefer life imprisonment. Better a life, than no life at all. And that's what we're doing by keeping them in prison. Preserving the sanctity of life.

Yes; you would prefer life imprisonment. It's a personal preference. I can safely say that not everyone would prefer that. Why is it suddenly okay to make the decision for them? Especially when they're not being properly punished for their crime?

Finally, what about the incurably insane? People who have to be kept in asylums for their safety? Would you want them to be killed, rather than kept in what is effectively a prison for the rest of their life? Which would be the more cruel thing to do?

Incurably insane people are not murderers (usually). Why would we kill them?

You aren't explaining why, though. What's wrong with a lesser punishment? Why do they have to be killed?

I have explained it, but I guess I will again. Because by murdering another individual, they have violated that person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and not just one time, like if you stole something from them or eve burned down their home--you basically made sure they can never have any rights again, seeing as how they're dead.

Because of this, they relinquish all their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I still maintain what I said. Better a life than no life at all. Even if you're wracked with guilt during it. However, bear in mind that even the most compassionate of people aren't going to be wracked with guilt all of the time. They'll have periods where they forget and such.

Now, you seem to be stuck on this believing that people in prison are going to commit murder again while inside there.

Here is the statistics for murder in jails: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/shsplj.htm

And out of jails: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

Notice something? The murder rate in prison is actually lower than out of prison. Weird stuff, eh?

Uh, it should make sense that the murder rate would be higher out of prison; if it wasn't, then all the inmates would be dead, seeing as how the population pool for inmates is abysmally smaller when compared to the population out of prison.

Second of all, you used statistics for 2001 to 2002. That's two years. Complaining about my graph not using a larger sample size and then throwing statistics like this in is a tad hypocritical.

That being said, try this link: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcrp/tables/dcst06spt1.htm

At least this gives statistics over the course of a handful of years. 299 homicides for 5 years is quite a lot of homicides. Also notice the suicide rate in the thousands.

Aesir · Mar 19, 2009

RDK said:
Irrelevant. We are discussing whether or not capital punishment falls under the description of cruel and unusual punishment, which would violate our 8th amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States. Refer to the OP.

So forgive me if I'm missing something; but if the entire goal of this thread is to discuss whether or not it's cruel and unusual punishment why bother making a case that it's a deterrent to crime? (unless you're replying to someone who made that case then my apologies.

However it's clear the current practice is cruel and unusual punishment, there are just too many possible things that could go wrong. (I've covered these already.)

His argument may be morally suspect, but it got a boost of scientific legitimacy in April 2005, when the British medical journal Lancet reported that on the basis of the toxicology reports of executed inmates from six U.S. states, 43% of prisoners may have still been conscious after their dose of sedatives.

source

Also even the creator of the method says if he could he would go back and do it all over again.

And Dr. Jay Chapman, a forensic pathologist who created the nation's first lethal injection protocol, in Oklahoma in 1977, said that were he to do it once more, he would not recommend the three-drug concoction now in widespread use.

Instead, Dr. Chapman said, an overdose of one drug, a barbiturate — the method veterinarians use to end the lives of sick animals — would painlessly cause prisoners to lose consciousness, stop breathing and die. "Hindsight is always 20/20," he said.

Source

I don't even understand why he wouldn't have thought of this in the first place but kudos to him for trying to make it as painless as possible.

However as it stands now no states have changed their lethal injection protocols, so until they do the current practice is cruel and unusual punishment.

Aorist · Mar 20, 2009

RDK said:
Irrelevant. We are discussing whether or not capital punishment falls under the description of cruel and unusual punishment, which would violate our 8th amendment rights under the Constitution of the United States. Refer to the OP.

I don't really consider 200 deaths as "tiny". And as for the other half of the graph, it's supposed to be tiny in comparison--it's showing the effects of executions on crime (specifically murder).

In this graph, it's assumed to be the case, as the logical alternative to capital punishment is life in prison.

You misunderstand my refutation of your graph.

I'll put it slightly simpler. Your graph showed a correlation between a higher capital punishment rate and a lower murder rate. All that this (conceivably) shows is that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder. This is not in question. However, it makes no comparison to any alternative method, such as life imprisonment. Thus, from your graph alone, we cannot know whether it is a noticeably more effective means of crime deterrency than life imprisonment.

The refutation regarding the fact that it only addresses the United States was also misunderstood. I was merely saying that it is possible that there are alternative factors in play other than capital punishment that affected your graph.

Finally, while 200 deaths is of course horrific, scientists tend to use far more than 200 data points to establish a trend.

RDK said:
Incurably insane people are not murderers (usually). Why would we kill them?

I have answered this above. You claimed that life imprisonment was more cruel and unusual than death. The incurably insane must be imprisoned for life, so by your own logic it would be better to kill them.

RDK said:
I have explained it, but I guess I will again. Because by murdering another individual, they have violated that person's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and not just one time, like if you stole something from them or eve burned down their home--you basically made sure they can never have any rights again, seeing as how they're dead.

Because of this, they relinquish all their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get this. I just don't get why killing people (removing their rights) because they killed someone (removed their rights) is a logical step. It only makes sense if you assume criminal punishment should work by the law of "eye for an eye".

Uh, it should make sense that the murder rate would be higher out of prison; if it wasn't, then all the inmates would be dead, seeing as how the population pool for inmates is abysmally smaller when compared to the population out of prison.

Second of all, you used statistics for 2001 to 2002. That's two years. Complaining about my graph not using a larger sample size and then throwing statistics like this in is a tad hypocritical.

That being said, try this link: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcrp/tables/dcst06spt1.htm

At least this gives statistics over the course of a handful of years. 299 homicides for 5 years is quite a lot of homicides. Also notice the suicide rate in the thousands.

Nice try. The homicide rate was per 100,000 for each. Percentagewise, the homocide rate is lower in prison than out of it. Percentagewise.

Here's a better one: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/shipjtab.htm Sorry, you're right, that was hypocritical of me.

299 seems a lot, you're right. But percentagewise with the number of people in prison, when compared with the percent of murders outside of the jail, it is miniscule.

RDK said:
If you're going to run with this, please provide some statistics, because even if you were a murderer and knew this from actual experience, you still wouldn't represent all murderers everywhere.

I said it because it makes sense. I can't find any statistics on the number of murderers who murder again. However, it is tangential to my point now, as its purpose was to illustrate that people in prisons aren't more likely to murder than those out of it.

Skrah · Mar 25, 2009

I mistakenly made another thread about this, so I'll just copy paste what I wrote here.

The death penalty. It's been around for as long as someone has been deemed worthy of deciding whether someone lives or not. Some say, "An eye for an eye, right? He took someone's life away, so he doesn't have the right to live."

Now, that takes me to another thing. The human rights. What are they? Who rules it and protects it? More importantly, can your rights as a human being be nullified? You have a right to live, as much as everyone else, so is it just that if you neglect someone's rights and decide to kill him you should be killed too?

So as this question in particular is based off a lot in morals, people have a different view of it. Religion, personal beliefs, it all comes into play.

People that don't want the life sentence say that murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and the like should be thrown into jail for the rest of their lives. People that base their opinion on religion say that they need to be "merciful" and that they should forgive others, to turn the other cheek lets say.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'd rather die than live the rest of my life in jail. So, merciful? I don't think so.

Another con about life sentence is that crooks get out easily. In my country, the drug dealers have so much control over the police and the judicial branch that they are out and kicking in a year. To evade this they sentence the culprit to 400 years of imprisonment, so if they cut off a few years, they still stay in jail till they die.

So how do the culprits that live in jail get their food, water, clothing, etc? Taxes.

And that is something that deeply annoys me. Why should I pay so some scum of the earth lives?

Now here is a quote that I found that expresses pretty much why the death sentence should be kept.
"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

So in other words, yes, an eye for an eye.

The death sentence can take a long time, yes, and it IS more expensive than the life sentence, but if the trials were shortened it wouldn't be such a problem. We are ridding ourselves of murderers, which in turn saves the lives of the would-be victims of the killer. By applying the death penalty we also spread fear through the criminals, and there wouldn't be as much crime.

Another cause of Mexico's faulty system: Some years ago, a 16 year old killed a girl, chopped her to pieces, dug a hole and dumped her in there. Where is he now? He joined the clergy, two years later. He was two years in the teen prison.

Obviously I'm not saying that they should've killed him right then. They could have waited those two years, and then kill him. How can we know that he won't kill another person? Becoming part of the church doesn't change the fact that you have blood on your hands.

So in conclusion, the death penalty SHOULD be used, BUT only with a GOOD and EFFICIENT trial system to avoid casualties. What goes around comes around, son.

Aorist · Mar 25, 2009

We've been debating for 3 pages and have already covered much of what you've said there, Skrah.

People that don't want the life sentence say that murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and the like should be thrown into jail for the rest of their lives. People that base their opinion on religion say that they need to be "merciful" and that they should forgive others, to turn the other cheek lets say.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'd rather die than live the rest of my life in jail. So, merciful? I don't think so.

Strawman and an opinion call.

So how do the culprits that live in jail get their food, water, clothing, etc? Taxes.

And that is something that deeply annoys me. Why should I pay so some scum of the earth lives?

You're paying so that the "scum of the earth" aren't out on the street murdering and such. Think of it that way.

And it's more expensive to exact capital punishment than to have life imprisonment. Either way you'd be paying for it. Any decrease in the amount of money spent on the capital punishment deal would lead to lapses in the judicial system - cheaper, but also more likely to fall victim to mistaken identity. And that's not something you want to do with something as irreversible as death.

For your benefit, the topics that we've already discussed or are partway through discussing:

Some say, "An eye for an eye, right? He took someone's life away, so he doesn't have the right to live."

We are ridding ourselves of murderers, which in turn saves the lives of the would-be victims of the killer. By applying the death penalty we also spread fear through the criminals, and there wouldn't be as much crime.

Skrah · Mar 25, 2009

Sorry, I just copy pasted this from another thread that I mistakenly did.

Yeah, but if I had to choose between paying for a murderer to live so that he may get out or getting him killed I would prefer the second choice. Innocents can be mistaken as criminals but, as I said, a better system should be the one to apply the death penalty. And anyways they still suffer in jail and such.

So the last things you quoted are halfway through debating?

I'd like to hear what people have to say so I can come up with an intelligent answer to them.

Aorist · Mar 26, 2009

Skrah said:
Yeah, but if I had to choose between paying for a murderer to live so that he may get out or getting him killed I would prefer the second choice. Innocents can be mistaken as criminals but, as I said, a better system should be the one to apply the death penalty. And anyways they still suffer in jail and such.

Do you represent the majority of people?

Even if you did, that wouldn't matter. What you prefer is only an argument if your preference is based on reason. You would have to effectively argue that capital punishment is the best option before anything remotely close to personal preference comes in to play.

The only way to completely remove the chance of mistaken identity is to not kill anyone at all. Without that, there is an element of doubt in all circumstances.

The last things I quoted were topics we had covered already. It was intended for you to read the thread, because I doubt anyone wants to repeat their arguments. So, yeah. Want to hear what we're saying? Read the thread.

woody72691 · Apr 22, 2009

well if Texas has it, why cant we?? u should pay for your crimes depending on what it was. it doesnt make sense that abortion is good in everyday apparel and this isnt.

Eor · Apr 23, 2009

woody72691 said:
well if Texas has it, why cant we?? u should pay for your crimes depending on what it was. it doesnt make sense that abortion is good in everyday apparel and this isnt.

Your first sentence makes no logical sense, your second sentence is loaded and doesn't actually answer anything, and your third one has nothing to do with this topic

woody72691 · Apr 23, 2009

Eor said:
Your first sentence makes no logical sense, your second sentence is loaded and doesn't actually answer anything, and your third one has nothing to do with this topic

first Texas is the only state that i know of that has captail punishment legal. 2nd u should pay depending on the crime. so if u killed someone and u covered it up in a way and your sentence to death take it. and the 3rd part has been debated along with this because people think killing criminals is worse than abortion.

Eor · Apr 23, 2009

woody72691 said:
first Texas is the only state that i know of that has captail punishment legal.

I'm pretty sure every state but three or so have it. Besides, that doesn't give a logical reason. Just because people in Texas do it doesn't mean that it's a moral thing to do.

woody72691 said:
2nd u should pay depending on the crime. so if u killed someone and u covered it up in a way and your sentence to death take it.

You are repeating yourself. You say you should 'pay depending on the crime'. No one is arguing that. What people are arguing about is whether or not capital punishment is moral or not. Unless you're suggesting the eye for an eye thing?

woody72691 said:
and the 3rd part has been debated along with this because people think killing criminals is worse than abortion.

Not in this thread it hasn't. Abortion doesn't really belong here. It's a similar topic, but it belongs in it's own thread, which we have

Capital Punishment.

Smash Lord

Level 55

Smash Master

Smash Champion

Bird Law Aficionado

Smash Champion

Smash Apprentice

Bird Law Aficionado

Smash Champion

Bird Law Aficionado

Smash Ace

Smash Champion

Bird Law Aficionado

III

Smash Apprentice

Smash Lord

Smash Apprentice

Smash Ace

Smash Obsessed

Smash Apprentice

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Lord

Smash Apprentice

Smash Master

Smash Hero

Smash Apprentice

Smash Lord

Smash Apprentice

Smash Hero

Smash Master

Smash Apprentice

Smash Ace

Smash Apprentice

Smash Ace

Smash Apprentice

Smash Ace

Banned via Warnings

Smash Ace

Banned via Warnings

Information

Network