• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Capital Punishment

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD
1,250
Posts
10
Years
oh, koff~

A bullet in their socket is worth money in my pocket.

Let me tell you something, criminals cost money. Your money. Violent criminals, easy criminals, woman criminals, cow criminals, all cost money, see? Bullets is cheap. Meals is expensive. You like money? I like money. You hate crime? I detest it to the greatest circle of Hell. I guarantee you that if we were to start mowing them down like we mow the lawn, we'd save money. No more of this waiting and last meal BS. Bring back the firing squads. Those slated to be on death row screwed up. We have enough appeals to make sure for this kind of thing. And even if they were truly innocent, we'd have a lot more money to throw around to send some their way. Crime would drop if you increase the rate of death, severity of punishments and pain of death. You think those women Ted killed begged for their lives? I'll bet they did. Think they felt pain when Jeffrey snacked on their innards? Absolutely. Think criminals should get more rights than you? Didn't think so. Trust me, we'd be better off making prison absolute Hell, koffi~
 
Eruption

Eruption

6,318
Posts
17
Years
Against. While I understand the arguments for capital punishment especially the monetary one, I think they're outweighed by the fact that we are talking about large amounts of human life being wasted here.

I don't agree that it should be in place simply for the threat of deterring criminals either. Few murderers are going to see the difference between life imprisonment (an already strict sentence) and the death sentence as they simply won't plan to be caught in the first place. Many will also be in a position were death is worth the risk due to the financial desperation they find themselves in or the importance of the murder to them personally.

Apart from saving money, we don't tend to achieve much by murdering them and, as a result, I don't think it's possible to justify the death sentence.
 
Alexander Nicholi

Alexander Nicholi

what do you know about computing?
5,500
Posts
14
Years
Since when will killing someone tell people not to kill someone?

As for treason, we have a lot of political treason that goes practically unnoticed. IMO, killing someone for not pledging allegiance to your country is absolutely barbaric.

All in all, the death penalty is one of the least logical and most vengeful punishments to give to someone, and is just plain wrong no matter what they've done.
 
Esper

Esper

10,769
Posts
14
Years
Rezilia said:
As per homosexuality in the UAE, it being a crime IS based somewhat in religion, but in the most popular Emirates - namely Dubai and Abu Dhabi - it has more of an impact. The United Arab Emirates in general, but especially those two, seek to become as important or atleast as popular as the U.S. Due to this, they are growing nations.

Many men came over from tons of other nations throughout the world to the UAE in order to send home money to their families. Their societies, for the most part, relied mainly on men working and women staying at home, which caused an overhaul in the male population.

While the UAE generally believes that male-female couples is the holy option, it also needs a major rise in population - even if that means it becomes a melting pot. So, male-female couples are needed most of all. The more gay couples there are, supposedly, the less chance there is for a growing population in the UAE.

However, this creates a contradiction:

1) Same-sex couples exist mainly because there aren't enough women for every man. So, in order to increase the population, each woman needs to be with and use multiple men.

2) The above is not only unholy but may change society into one that the UAE's natives won't be okay with.

So, because of this, the best they can do is outlaw gay couples and bring in more females by creating a rise in positions that females normally use - like with my mother and her teaching career. These two are meant to deter male-male couples while creating a better chance for population increase.

--

So, it isn't just a cultural thing - it's also political.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you're trying to justify criminalizing being gay or not, but gay people don't exist because of a gender imbalance. Gay people just exist. There's really nothing just about imprisoning or killing someone simply for existing. To do so really is political and killing for political reasons is one of the biggest flaws of capital punishment as an idea because it's arbitrary, hard to avoid since it's hard to untangle government and politics, and unjust.

Nuke said:
Against. While I understand the arguments for capital punishment especially the monetary one, I think they're outweighed by the fact that we are talking about large amounts of human life being wasted here.

I don't agree that it should be in place simply for the threat of deterring criminals either. Few murderers are going to see the difference between life imprisonment (an already strict sentence) and the death sentence as they simply won't plan to be caught in the first place. Many will also be in a position were death is worth the risk due to the financial desperation they find themselves in or the importance of the murder to them personally.

Apart from saving money, we don't tend to achieve much by murdering them and, as a result, I don't think it's possible to justify the death sentence.
Click to expand...
I've always read that capital punishment is more expensive than imprisonment because of all the costs with courts and lawyers. I don't have any sources to cite on me at the moment though.
 
Eruption

Eruption

6,318
Posts
17
Years
Well I'm not sure about that, but in the case that it did cost more to kill them it just makes me even more against the idea of it. It seems selfish in my opinion that people would see other people put to death for the benefit of a slight reduction on their taxes.
 

Kanzler

5,983
Posts
15
Years
No, it's not "political" at all, it's religious. The UAE doesn't need a growing population, they get more undocumented migrant workers than they need and they always will as long as there is economic growth. "Population growth" is just a red herring.

People who would see others put to death aren't primarily concerned about their taxes, they just don't value the life of a criminal they deem deserving of capital punishment enough to keep them around. I mean, those who are against capital punishment don't want anything to do with the criminal either, we're hearing people talk about "keeping them away from society". The most salient difference is whether you accomplish that by death, or not.
 

Pilkie

Pokémon Breeder
96
Posts
10
Years
I am completely against Capital Punishment and, alongside that, am against life-term jail sentences. The prison system wasn't supposed to be a dungeon where bad people go, it's supposed to be a place where people can serve time for their crime and then be rehabilitated so they can return to society without being a risk to themselves or others. I don't think anyone in this world has the right/privilege to decide whether someone should live or die, and that goes the same for people who are imprisoned for life.
 

Rezilia

319
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen Jun 19, 2022
Actually, in the UAE, you idea, Scarf, is wrong.

It's BECAUSE these men have had little to no women to choose from that many straight men became gay - seeking some sort of companionship. This isn't to say that, by putting more females in the population, there won't be any more gay men - but many men would prefer being straight that were only gay before due to a NEED for companionship, which means the amount of male-male couples WILL decrease.
 

Pilkie

Pokémon Breeder
96
Posts
10
Years
Rezilia said:
Actually, in the UAE, you idea, Scarf, is wrong.

It's BECAUSE these men have had little to no women to choose from that many straight men became gay - seeking some sort of companionship. This isn't to say that, by putting more females in the population, there won't be any more gay men - but many men would prefer being straight that were only gay before due to a NEED for companionship, which means the amount of male-male couples WILL decrease.
Click to expand...

Gay people don't exist because of gender imbalance, they exist because that is their Sexual orientation as defined by biological conditions. Men can choose to be in a relationship with a man, but they can't choose to be a gay man. This probably sounds contradictory, but the point I am trying to drive here is that people don't choose their sexual orientation. The gender imbalance isn't making these men gay, they are choosing to be gay because that is what they want, they are attracted to Men, not women.
 
Eruption

Eruption

6,318
Posts
17
Years
BlahISuck said:
People who would see others put to death aren't primarily concerned about their taxes, they just don't value the life of a criminal they deem deserving of capital punishment enough to keep them around. I mean, those who are against capital punishment don't want anything to do with the criminal either, we're hearing people talk about "keeping them away from society". The most salient difference is whether you accomplish that by death, or not.
Click to expand...

I know it might not be many people's primary concern (although it seems to be for CoffeeDrink), but the fact that it's even a contributor to people's arguments worries me.
 

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD
1,250
Posts
10
Years
Let me tell you a story, koff~

I murdered your family and your closest relatives because you ran over my dog. I raped your women and defiled your children. I am evil; or just really upset that you ran over Fifi. I killed your people with a weapon that costs me $60 (nice combat knife). So, out of grief and berievement you want me put to death. I bring up the argument that it is cheaper to keep me alive than it is to kill me.

What a joke. People still cling to this fantasy? The idea that it is more expensive (or just as) to kill an inmate than keep one alive is laughable. You know, I have a dental issue with my jaw. It keeps locking up on me. It'd cost a couple thousand to fix this issue. If I was a prisoner, my dental work is free. My medicine is free. My food is free, my bed is free, I get to watch TV and workout in the yard, read books at the library. . . you see where I'm going with this? The things that prisoners receive come out of our pocket. I don't believe I should have to pay thousands of dollars to fix my health problem when it costs an inmate nothing because he murdered some highschool girl and is in prison for life; and I help pay for it with my money I earned at an honest job.

Death is cheap. Don't say otherwise. The inmates laugh at idiots who go around saying that it's so expensive to kill them. Really? How so? Endless appeals? We still get some from Manson, even though he's a lifer and not on DR. Euthanasia? Are those drugs worth $500,000? Really? Get over yourself and get back in line, you're not fooling anyone but yourself. Criminals kill people with weapons that are cheaper than your Gamboys, and you tell me it's expensive? Bullets are extremely cheap. Bringing back the firing squads will reduce crime guys, criminals fear death as well, that's why the endless appeals. Criminals shouldn't get it easy, koffi~

also, I am concerned about my taxes as well as millions of others like me. Don't write us off the board. Maybe if I drew a smiley face I'd appear less menacing?
 
Eruption

Eruption

6,318
Posts
17
Years
That's not important to me, the cost of keeping the accused alive is irrelevant as I simply wouldn't want him/her put to death in the first place. My grief and bereavement wouldn't be solved by the ending of his/her life. As far as I'm concerned, a life sentence is justice enough, (s)he cannot commit the crime again until (s)he can satisfy a parole board that it will not occur again and (s)he serves a large sentence confined for the crime.

Life over money is quite simple to me in this case.
 

幕之内 一歩

<b><font color=
288
Posts
14
Years
100% for.

It should be easier to obtain for first degree murderers, multiple (2+) offense rapists and child molesters.

Nuke said:
That's not important to me, the cost of keeping the accused alive is irrelevant as I simply wouldn't want him/her put to death in the first place. My grief and bereavement wouldn't be solved by the ending of his/her life. As far as I'm concerned, a life sentence is justice enough, (s)he cannot commit the crime again until (s)he can satisfy a parole board that it will not occur again and (s)he serves a large sentence confined for the crime.

Life over money is quite simple to me in this case.
Click to expand...

Also, most of the time the serious offenders WILL commit their crime again while in prison. Rape and murder in prison is a common occurrence. The cost of money it takes to keep pieces of sh*t alive is not worth it at all. They should be buried and forgotten.
 

AngelicSpirit

13
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 24
  • Seen Aug 30, 2014
It completely depends on the situation in question.

If somebody breaks into your house, kills your baby, and rapes your wife, all the while getting her pregnant, then no, death is not what they deserve. As disagreeable as my opinion is, what they need is at least 50 years in a maximum security prison, and constant monitoring when and if they serve long enough of a sentence to be eligible for parole. Not the death penalty.

If an individual promises to exterminate an entire race, religion, country, or the world, of its people, however, they deserve to be executed. We as a nation cannot let people who have made those very such threats live, because they are a danger to society.

That's my two cents. I hope I don't sound stupid about this. :/
 
Last edited:
Eruption

Eruption

6,318
Posts
17
Years
幕之内 一歩 said:
100% for.

It should be easier to obtain for first degree murderers, multiple (2+) offense rapists and child molesters.



Also, most of the time the serious offenders WILL commit their crime again while in prison. Rape and murder in prison is a common occurrence. The cost of money it takes to keep pieces of sh*t alive is not worth it at all. They should be buried and forgotten.
Click to expand...

And if they do commit a further crime inside they can get sent down for longer and can be separated from other inmates which is fine by me, but I respect your opinion.

AngelicSpirit said:
It completely depends on the situation in question.

If somebody breaks into your house, kills your baby, and rapes your wife, all the while getting her pregnant, then no, death is not what they deserve. As disagreeable my as opinion is, what they need is at least 50 years in a maximum security prison, and constant monitoring when and if they serve long enough of a sentence to be eligible for parole. Not the death penalty.

If an individual promises to exterminate an entire race, religion, country, or the world, of its people, however, they deserve to be executed. We as a nation cannot let people who have made those very such threats live, because they are a danger to society.

That's my two cents. I hope I don't sound stupid about this. :/
Click to expand...

Not at all, it was a well made point and (I think) one of the popular opinions surrounding this issue.
 
twocows

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
The role of the criminal justice system should be to rehabilitate first and to punish second. Capital punishment should only be on the table if a panel of expert psychologists deems the offender unfit for rehabilitation (for example, a sociopath).
 

CoffeeDrink

GET WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD
1,250
Posts
10
Years
Hate to break it to ya, koff~

Rehabilitation doesn't work the way most people think. Turns out lesser criminals come out of jail hardened and upset at the system for treating them badly. Lucky they ain't in Russia but they still complain.

Also, Sociopaths can fool several people, including doctors. Being able to trick another person into believing you're sane isn't very hard to do unless you legitimately have mental issues. These doctors will cost an unbelievable amount to send them all in there and go door to door peddling their are-you-sane wares. It's a fantasy to believe that they'd be able to do this for every inmate on death row. You'd almost have to gather together an army of the top psychologists to get the work done. And even then. . . you know we incarcerate more people per-capita than any other place on the planet right? Also, you need money to keep the guards happy, then the inmates, and everything else.

People: Gotta make room for more people. That guy who murdered and raped his way to jail made his choice. No one made him pick up a knife or forced him to force down that woman/man/kid/dead thing/ use your imagination. Growing up I was always told about my consequences, so why is it that I don't get free health care or dental? Do you get it? It's a joke. These people run all over you and me and get their rewards. Eye for an eye makes the whole world blind? Grow up. These people are a waste of space. They drain our resources on an already limping economy and you want to keep them all locked up, fed, happy and safe for the next 20XX years? There is always going to be a steady stream of lifers, ergo there will always be a drain on rooms in the prisons. You could fill entire prisons of lifers and DRs on their own. You want prisons in your back yards? They made their beds and now you're not letting them fall asleep like they should, koffi~
 

Shamol

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.
185
Posts
10
Years
twocows said:
The role of the criminal justice system should be to rehabilitate first and to punish second. Capital punishment should only be on the table if a panel of expert psychologists deems the offender unfit for rehabilitation (for example, a sociopath).
Click to expand...

I like this response, not because I agree with it, but you choose to actually lay down the philosophical underpinnings of the criminal justice system. In this thread, there has been three such views methinks:

1. Psychological rehabilitation for the murderer
2. As a deterrent for other possible murderers
3. As retribution, where retribution is an irreducible virtue.

So I think when debating principles of capital punishment, one should specify which of the above she adopts, and why in her opinion the other views are incorrect. I am a proponent of (2), and while I don't think the other views are incorrect, I think (2) is better than them, in terms of the social values brought about.

So, I have to say I'm somewhat of a consequentialist on the matter.

EDIT: Sorry, apparently there's another view about minimizing future threats posed by the same offender. I think this is relevant, if not reducible, to (1) above.
 

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
One of the big problems with capital punishment that I'm not seeing a lot of people talk about is that it opens up the opportunity for corrupt governments to use it for something other than to rid the world of the vilest, unrepentant criminals. It can also be used as a means of political oppression and indeed has been and in some places still is. Essentially, overly statist governments can employ it as an "obey or die" threat to the populace. This could extend to being used as a punishment for breaking laws where capital punishment is a punishment that far outweighs the crime.

The United States doesn't completely do this, at least not to my knowledge, but the possibility of it happening is still there. For that reason and the fact that rehabilitation is something that should be considered more in the prison system of the U.S., I find the idea of capital punishment to be one that is too flawed to be relied on in the administration of justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top