![]() |
Connecticut Supreme Court: Death Penalty ruled unconstitutional
Quote:
I think is is another example where recent evidence to the contrary (botched executions, etc.) has changed the public perception enough to where attitudes on the humane-ness of the death penalty itself comes into question. Do you see the Death Penalty as humane? Constitutional? Could the US Supreme Court get involved and be forced to rule on it next term? |
This always goes back to the bleeding hearts and the "He was such a good boy" excuse. Guess what? Kill some people, get yourself killed. Makes sense to me. Don't we all follow the Golden Rule? Or have people just simply forgotten that little gem?
|
The golden rule is too simple to work in the modern world. Would a person with mental disabilities who can't distinguish between right and wrong be made to suffer if they happen to harm someone?
|
Quote:
|
Yeah guys! Let's prove how bad killing is by killing the person who killed a person! That isn't small-minded at all!
|
Glad for Connecticut. The US's justice system is all about punishment and nothing about education and rehabilitation, it's time they stop fighting fire with fire.
Quote:
|
I'm glad. I don't think that the death penalty is good policy due to both practical and ethical reasons. I read that it actually costs more money to have people on death penalty (keep in mind that most of the money is taken up by courts with very few inmates who get the death penalty not actually being executed) than it would if one would keep them in prison in life or try to rehabilitate them. A lot of inmates apparently try to get the death penalty as they get solitary confinement most of the time and since most likely they don't get killed life is better than living with the other prisoners. Ethically and morally because some of the ways that the prisoners have been killed have been quite gruesome (the pain they induce) that they can be considered cruel and unusual punishment (which is unconstitutional btw), plus as a Christian I believe in giving second chances and mercy.
|
Okay, call me simple minded, sure. But have any of you actually seen first hand on what one person can do to another? Any murder scenes? Anything? Life is very different from the plastic joy bubble surrounding your safe little homes. There are some crimes that just deserve no second chances. Murder is one of them.
There is always a choice and if you choose to make the wrong ones who's supposed to fix them for you? Who is going to coddle the little ones because you slew their mother and left little more than a pile of indiscernible meat? I have no patience for those that make 'mistakes'. You're sorry? Well I'm sure saying sorry to the family of the little girl you raped makes it all okay. I don't care who you are or what god or gods you believe in, but I live in a world that is plagued by the sick and deranged alike. Is their life truly worth saving? Are these people truly worth all they suck from our funding? I may be simple minded when I say to off them, but the same can also be said if you've never so much as stubbed your toe in the territory of their aftermath. If you've never been subject to the pain and sorrow of losing someone because of another's malicious actions then please give some more thought before you up and claim that killing vermin is barbaric. |
Quote:
There is nothing the death penalty can do that can't be achieved through a life sentence. Especially in the American prison system which, if anything, would be a prolonged stay in Hell given what they allow there and what they ultimately cannot control in prison society. But the point of criminal justice is (or should be to) not only to uphold the law and punish those who break it, but to rehabilitate individuals and society as a whole. To rise above vengeance, as valid as our emotions are. Capital punishment violates that belief on every level. |
I agree with the idea that the prison system should be primarily used to rehabilitate people. And the US justice and prison systems are doing a very poor job at doing that.
But I don't think that the death penalty needs to be completely done away with either. The reality is that there are and will always be people who cannot be rehabilitated, and those are the only people it should be used on. Because like has been said just about every time this topic comes up on the internet, the death penalty has been a very poor crime deterrent, and I think that if there's a chance for someone to be rehabilitated and try to atone that we should take that chance. But again, there are people where that chance doesn't exist, and I've never understood why a life sentence is what the majority seems to usually prefer even in that case. What does a life sentence accomplish in regards to the unrepentant serial killer in cell #37 that hasn't shown any signs of change in the past decade? All he seems to be doing is eating up space, resources, and money to me. And they really need to stop using those chemical cocktails for the executions. Why an expensive and not guaranteed to work/work well method is the preferred method of execution is beyond me when cheaper and more surefire methods exist. |
I won't say much on this since it's an American political issue which is well outside my area of expertise, but I'm of the opinion that rehabilitation and release should always be the priority and that as things currently stand the existence of the death penalty carries too much risk of wrongly killing someone. Who punishes the government when they wrongly murder an innocent person?
If money is such a big deal, prisons need to be made as cheap as possible (I know for one thing that our prisons here are much too cushy). Besides is death - an instant out really - anywhere near as bad as living the rest of your life with regret for your actions (or for getting caught I guess) and fear of harm coming to yourself? |
Quote:
Basically, how can forensic science account for non-physical mitigating factors? |
Quote:
It's certainly an interesting point to consider. |
Speaking in generalities, I oppose the death penalty. As Ivysaur mentioned, Talion Law is too overly simplistic for a society that has advanced as much as we have in terms of offering a fair trial and in understanding the mens rea behind a person's crimes. I wholeheartedly agree that it is costly to house the convicted, and the appeals processes can easily result in ungodly amounts of tax money tied up in the court systems. When you get right down to it though, life is life. One person's life is not inherently better than another's, and while I might get some gruff for these statements, I do not believe society would be better off just, well, offing these people.
Why you may ask? To be blunt, it just doesn't seem to solve anything. As God mentioned, it really doesn't help the surviving families feel better when you look back on it, and it certainly doesn't prevent it from happening again. Will it save money? Maybe in the short-term, but I don't believe it's a long-term financial solution. Besides, by murdering the murders... we create martyrs. Isn't that what most convicted, unapologetic, and sadistically-driven murderers throughout history have wanted? To be known for their crimes? Why give them what they want? Why plaster their faces and names all over television and the internet? Shouldn't we pay more attention to the victims and their families? It doesn't really matter who did it, it matters that it was done, and that's a shame. Prison, in general, should be about fixing society; let's make it better. If we cannot rehabilitate people, let's make sure they cannot rejoin society, but who are we to take another life? Quote:
|
I want to add that, while the feelings of those who have been wronged is important to consider, it can't form the basis of a punishment. People's feelings can vary widely and if everyone is to be equal under the law we all have to be subject to predetermined punishments that fit a particular crime. Of course every crime is going to be unique, but it wouldn't be right to have two similar crimes be punished in widely different ways if the only major difference was that in one case a family member demanded a severe punishment and in the other case there was no family member who felt the same way.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
there's more then a few people who have lost control & killed someone they loved without knowing what they where doing til it was too late. they don't need forgiveness, they will suffer for what they did all of their lives, living in fear of making the same mistake again. locking them up or killing them more often then not is just giving them what they want, putting them out of their misery. is a big enough world for them & the family's of their victims to never see each other again. humans learn "right" from "wrong" by experiencing traumas. as for the whole raping thing, that can go a lot of different ways depending upon the circumstances. there have been guys who have gotten raped only for the woman who raped said guys to play the victim and get those guys arrested for it. next thing you know the media blows it out of perpetration & the double standards of this word come out in full force. i've already had something similar nearly happened to me cause one of my exs was completely nuts. i never even had sex with her & only dated her for a day. luckily i was not the first one she tried pulling that crap on: the cop that came after her 911 call she sent right up front of me was.the way that cop looked at her was the way my cats look at mice. and people wonder why i stopped bothering with dating... Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think what would be better in the long-term and for more people if the courts "got it right", so to speak, the first time and proved innocence/guilt well beyond a shadow of a doubt during the trial so we don't need to give people a zillion appeals because the prosecution/defense might have fucked up, or played on the jury's emotions and biases (because let's be real, some lawyers are just interested in winning cases and not justice). Of course that's all a lot easier said than done but.... |
Quote:
|
Quote:
That was just me making an anti-death penalty point xD |
Quote:
Your statement needs work. No, in all honesty and all truth: it is not cheaper to keep them alive. The statement above by itself is false and needs more substance to try and prove itself to be true. How much money does it cost to beat someone to death? None. I am not saying to beat them to death, but there are more ways to skin a cat. (Edit: Appeals happen even in life sentences. I felt the need to add this to the front of my post to avoid the skimming confusion. That is all) The drugs currently used are arterial in their use and can become unreliable due to the perpetrator's health, size, weight, height and a myriad of other factors that cannot be accounted for. However, it is a well known fact that the human body cannot function without it's brain. A captive bolt pistol is a viable alternative. They cost bordering around $2,000 and destroy the brain of a cow. The captive bolt pistol eliminates the bone and brain matter in our bovine friends and it isn't a secret that cow bone is far denser and resilient than human bone. To claim that the bolt pistol causes severe trauma in the subject before death is very sketchy to say the least; it's death, and they know it comes for them. Of course their heart rates will go up. Further more, the drugs currently in use are not as effective as initially thought. Recent news has that the poor drugs didn't kill as effectively as they were supposed to (hence this thread). The reason why killing inmates on death row is so expensive (besides appeals. There will always be appeals, even for life sentences. Manson puts one in at least once every year if I remember correctly) the drugs are so expensive because there are only a select few companies that sell them and they are patented and protected so only they can sell and manufacture them (unless I'm thinking of another drug article that is the reason). Anesthesia is also another option, but it has not been explored to a satisfying degree. Bare hands: free. Murderers don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars killing people, I assure you. Also, to put the expenditure of the government in perspective here's an article on their poor shopping: http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/pentagon-purchases-millions-in-markups/. Don't fall victim to what someone else tells you. Don't even believe me. Do the work yourself. Do some research, get involved. Just don't regurgitate to me that stupid, cow-eyed cockameme response: "It costs just as much to keep someone alive as it does to end them". No, not true, and people across the planet prove the statement wrong every day. |
Quote:
http://cdn.instructables.com/FF4/PY73/HA4MGK5X/FF4PY73HA4MGK5X.LARGE.jpg |
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.