why should he have that right, if he just killed someone? the way in which some of these people are killed is just sick in the head, thats probably why they're being put down
Death row final statements
- Thread starter ElliorR
- Start date
why should he have that right, if he just killed someone? the way in which some of these people are killed is just sick in the head, thats probably why they're being put down
It's up to us to decide in advance what range of sentencing a judge can impose. They are not being "put down" they are being killed. You put down a terminally ill dog. You kill someone who would otherwise live.
The judge imposes a sentence, and the criminal is released at the end, or earlier, after a minimum period, if it is felt they are safe and rehabilitated.
That's the rules our society has set down. We can review and change them, but not to affect people retrospectively.
My gripe isn't the length of sentences. 5 years is a staggeringly long time for example - it's the length of time most people spend at secondary school.
My gripe is that we don't rehabilitate, we instead release an illiterate scumbag back into society who knows nothing about being productive. The hard choice for them is being honest. If we can rehabilitate them and give them some basic skills then they can leave prison and they can have potential of a future.
How can a murderer be reformed? There is no such label for that unless they have lived for the rest of there lives without killing someone else and died of natural causes.
So a murderer kills someone when they are 11 years old because some kid told them to for fun, they goto jail for 30 years and are let free, they live happily and die of natural causes, perhaps thats a reformed murderer.
Nobody has the right to life who kills, its a simple variable to set, if you kill someone you have no right to anything, I think the victim should be able to set the justice but not immediately, maybe after 12months, it should be them because nobody can ever understand the effects other than the victims family.
You have no right to dictate that and neither does society because society is not affected by merely reading a newspaper about someones family member who has been killed.
But at the same time, there are so many what ifs that its really impossible to agree on any outcome being "right".
everyone knows about good and evil..
i dont get why you want someone who has killed for no good reason to be rehabilitated..
a lot of them are sick in the head, its why they've killed so should be put down.
i can only think you've killed to be on the side of a killer.. if someone in my family was killed by someone i would not auto think, they're probably nice people really so should be rehabilitated for the crime they have committed so can they can go on to live a full and happy life, forget about who they have killed, thats nothing.. yeah right.
i dont get why you want someone who has killed for no good reason to be rehabilitated..
a lot of them are sick in the head, its why they've killed so should be put down.
i can only think you've killed to be on the side of a killer.. if someone in my family was killed by someone i would not auto think, they're probably nice people really so should be rehabilitated for the crime they have committed so can they can go on to live a full and happy life, forget about who they have killed, thats nothing.. yeah right.
Could you put yourself in that position and still maintain that one isn't too many?
Soldato
I believe forgiveness is 'right', I'm not saying it's easy though, I was always inspired by the film 'The Nuns Story', I was only a child when I first watched it but it had a profound effect on me, I'm not even that religious tbh but I think there is a truth that can be found within us with true forgiveness, it's too easy to just to act off our instincts and be angry and condemn people for their wrong doings, we have to help these people.
If all of my conditions are met... if it's the case that you have 1,000 mass murderers/rapists/child abusers and you know a single person is innocent... and you know society as a whole has agreed to it in advance... and the money saved will save 100 lives then yes I could do it.
It wouldn't be easy, but it'd be the right choice. As soon as you chip away at any of those conditions though it falls flat and the answer is no.
It's very hypothetical - it'll never happen, I think.
Thats all good, but why is it wrong to execute a murderer and then forgive them?
What exactly is the difference?
Soldato
Obviously it's not wrong to forgive someone after they are dead but to have death as a prerequisite for forgiveness is ridiculous, that isn't forgiveness at all.
No.. it's just that having explained myself reasonably clearly in the thread I don't really have anything to add.
You already know execution doesn't work at any level, that our courts system isn't good enough to do it, and if after that you still want to do it then I cannot reason you out of a position you don't seem to have reasoned yourself into.
I don't believe in revenge and people who do are pretty dumb.
However I can see an argument for the very worst cases of murder in the most inhumane ways going to death penalty on the grounds of natural selection. Why should we treat some of these people humanely when we can no longer identify them as having human nature?
Some of them have to have some genetics that can only be good to eradicate from humanity.
Don't get me wrong I believe very few murders on this list would qualify on these grounds and I realise it would be subjective. However I do believe in the death penalty on some of the cases on that website.
However I can see an argument for the very worst cases of murder in the most inhumane ways going to death penalty on the grounds of natural selection. Why should we treat some of these people humanely when we can no longer identify them as having human nature?
Some of them have to have some genetics that can only be good to eradicate from humanity.
Don't get me wrong I believe very few murders on this list would qualify on these grounds and I realise it would be subjective. However I do believe in the death penalty on some of the cases on that website.
Ultimately this is the decisive factor of an impossible argument.
You have no right to judge anything unless you are in direct or indirect experience of said crime, BUT, after a time of "healing".
So someone kills your sister, you get over the initial shock, 12 months later you get to lay down the punishment.
Reading some paper somewhere whilst waiting for your haircut has no place in punishment.
You have no right to judge anything unless you are in direct or indirect experience of said crime, BUT, after a time of "healing".
So someone kills your sister, you get over the initial shock, 12 months later you get to lay down the punishment.
Reading some paper somewhere whilst waiting for your haircut has no place in punishment.
The argument has gone fully circular. You've made this point already and been responded to.
I'm afraid that nobody has invalidated my argument, so I guess history is made in this thread.
Don't thank me, I'm just a natural.
Welcome to ignore.
Soldato
Soldato
Just something I picked up on.
It's a reason given by many who oppose capital punishment, which goes along the lines of an innocent being put to death and then later being exonerated. "People need to accept that one wrongful conviction and execution is one too many."
Doesn't that apply on the opposite side as well? One unnecessary death due to the release of an "rehabilitated" murderer is one too many?
Haven't got any statistics to hand but I'm sure reoffending rates are incredibly high, why risk the general public's safety with the release of a convicted murderer, who may go on to kill again?
One unnecessary death due to the release of an "rehabilitated" murderer is one too many?
It's a reason given by many who oppose capital punishment, which goes along the lines of an innocent being put to death and then later being exonerated. "People need to accept that one wrongful conviction and execution is one too many."
Doesn't that apply on the opposite side as well? One unnecessary death due to the release of an "rehabilitated" murderer is one too many?
Haven't got any statistics to hand but I'm sure reoffending rates are incredibly high, why risk the general public's safety with the release of a convicted murderer, who may go on to kill again?
One unnecessary death due to the release of an "rehabilitated" murderer is one too many?
On the forum I found the link there's one member who's attitude when someone said about not being able to reverse executing an innocent person was....
"Grow up man.
As long as most of them are guilty it completely justifys it."
As much as I abhor the death penalty, I kind of wish people with that attitude could find out what it's like to be innocent and sentenced to death.
"Grow up man.
As long as most of them are guilty it completely justifys it."
As much as I abhor the death penalty, I kind of wish people with that attitude could find out what it's like to be innocent and sentenced to death.