This conversation is closed.

Is the death penalty a good idea? If so, for which type/s of crime..

Is the death penalty a good idea? If so, for which type/s of crime..

  • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Jun 18 2011: Executing people is barbaric and serves no useful purpose. Statistically it has been proven in countries that eliminated the death penalty that 'death penalty' crimes have not increased. On that basis it is not a deterrent.

    If the idea is to punish, I think it is a greater punishment to serve a penance isolated from law abiding society.
  • Jun 14 2011: The death penalty is morally wrong.
  • thumb
    Jun 11 2011: Ultimately, the death 'penalty' is in itself incorrect by definition. Those who 'serve' our country die for us... and that's their.. penalty? I see no problem with he death penalty as a way of keeping the humans at manageable population densities.

    But yes, how do we decide.. there will always be collateral damage.. and that scares people. I know i would be pissed off if i was killed (lol) for an innocence.. But i would understand the principle.

    The 'equality of outcomes' is what we base our sentencing on remember. So, if you steal a loaf of bread off a starving 'third world' family.. well you may have done much more damage than stealing a Ferrari from some rich guy. The crime is still theft. It would also be impossible to elect a board (as humans they will inherently be corrupted) to rule on who gets the penalty. So now i say, maybe its a good idea...but it could never be executed..ha
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2011: "I see no problem with he death penalty as a way of keeping the humans at manageable population densities."

      So according to you, who should chose who lives and who dies? Or perhaps you already have an idea yourself?
      • thumb
        Jun 12 2011: Who should go.. i can not say because i know i could not come up with something rational. Who else could say is situational.

        The fact that humans must be culled... and if not by each other... then by nature is just plain scientific fact. We have overpopulated the earth and crushed it in the process. No other creature has amounted (in our knowledge) the scope we have, and so this can not go on forever.
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2011: Dylan, its pretty scary when you talk about death penalty and theft in the same sentence.

      I hear that they really like blondes in Saudi Arabia and it might be a good fit for you. They have a place called 'chop chop square' where they literally lop off limbs for theft. Would that suffice?
      • thumb
        Jun 12 2011: How very not of a 50+ stature. So redundant.

        Examples are examples.

        To bullet point my thoughts...

        1) If there were no laws there would be less control

        2) We need laws to dictate common values

        3) Those who make those laws are not always effective

        4) Crime is established, and degrees to which breaking the law is penalised

        5) Humans are autonomous and will decide which laws they are willing to break and for what penalty

        6) Thus, crime is a game
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: Perhaps there is a language barrier here.
          Crime is not a game for the victims.
          The societies we live in are not games for contributing members.
      • thumb
        Jun 13 2011: Because I cant reply to the last post, ill do it this way.

        Yes, i agree with you it is not a game for the victims (as we know the term ''victim' to be).
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2011: The language barrier persists but I note that you are Australian and so now I am confused. Cryptic and not clear.
  • thumb
    Jun 10 2011: While it might be, theoretically, the appropriate solution in some cases, I don't think we have the means to distinguish between which convicts deserve death and which one should live. We already can't reliably detect which ones need psychological care, so deciding on the death of someone is way too much for our current means and methods.
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2011: Timothy...............I tend to agree with your evaluation. I would suppose that most of the "pro people" would say why waste the money to keep him/her around. That really doesn't sound reasonable to me. How do you value life in terms of money? I saw an interview with both Jeffrey Dahmer and his father present. It seemed an in-depth talk with no one condemning JD and he was very honest in telling how he started his pathological journey. Some things just do not make sense.
  • thumb
    Jun 10 2011: definately Not graffiti- I like Banksy.
  • thumb
    Jun 10 2011: I'm for it if the perpetrator is beyond human,if you've been around them you'll know what i'm talking about.
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2011: Is beyond human a definition that can stand a court of law? Or is it a feeling, or intuition?
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2011: Beyond Human has a 'superior' or 'evolved' Homo Sapiens connotation. Perhaps the best adjective so far, if any, would still be 'inhuman'(as in excessively cruel). But then again, to a certain extend, many of us would highly qualify to be attributed the inhuman tag.
  • thumb
    Jun 10 2011: No it has never been a good idea. How does it help any kind of reconciliation?
    • thumb
      Jun 11 2011: I agree, it's a modern version of the witch hunt. We only create a sicker society by overlooking the roots of the problem and focusing only on the punishment.
  • thumb
    Jun 10 2011: I don't think so. The only thing the death penalty succeeds in 100 percent of the time is adding one more casualty to the crime.