Capital Punishment

[mykcob4]

The fact is that the death penalty has been used to a dispoprtionate level against minorities in this nation. Although whites have committed terrible crimes of the same magnitude they are rarely executed except in  some cases. The proportion of minorities that are executed for the same crimes is high greated by percentage. This screams of the injustice of the death penalty. If for no other reason than racism the death penalty should be abolished. That being said, there are far more reasons to end the death penalty.

[Aupmanyav]

I am against capital punishment and agree that it's revenge and nothing but blood for blood. It's researched and documented many times that it doesn't deter any crime.

Punishment does deter crime. Compare crime situation in Middle-East and in US or India.

[Plu]

Punishment in the Middle-East is way harsher than in the US, and it's a giant mess. I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make, but it doesn't seem to work.

[Aupmanyav]

For most people, everything is a black and white issue it seems :(

Soft punishment leads to this:

"Out of the total 54,198 persons arrested in Delhi under various charges of the IPC, a whopping 43,674 were new to the 'world of crime' while 10,524 had committed offences more than once.

According to the statistics released by National Crime Records Bureau for 2006, there were 1,249 arrested persons in the capital who were convicted at least three times or more. While 6,443 (11.9 per cent) of the arrested were convicted once, 2,832 (5.2 per cent) were convicted twice, the statistics revealed."
http://www.rediff.com/news/report/crime/20080110.htm

I am not able to find statistics right now, but there are many criminals who are involved in multiple murder cases. These people are a danger to society and should certainly be put to death.

"A 32-year-old man, wanted by Delhi Police in connection with over 15 cases of murder and robbery, was killed in a 20-minute shootout between his gang and police in the capital."

"A 41-year-old man, described by police as one of the top 10 criminals of Delhi involved in at least 48 cases, was arrested from Rishikesh for his alleged involvement in the murder of a constable three months ago."

http://www.ndtv.com/topic/murder-cases-in-india

[Jason78]

It is a simple game of morality that we have all played Shir. If we had the "power" to know for certain that a person had killed and had no issue with killing again and we have to power to kill him would we? I am of the opinion that I would rather kill him than risk him killing someone else, even if ....gasp...it is someone I don't like. Some suggest we take the chance of putting "it" in prison for the rest of its life on the hope it never escapes under the very "knowing" understanding that the chance of said murderer ever killing one of "their" family is less than it killing some other bastards family. I am not willing to do that to someone else family, but some people apparently have no objection to having your family fucked up and murdered because...well....they live hundreds maybe thousands of miles from a prison. Problem solved for them.

You don't want a murderer escaping from prison because they might murder an innocent.

But you're ok with the state executing prisoners, even though they do murder innocents.

If it was an innocent member of your family on death row, would it be acceptable collateral damage?

[Jason78]

I am against capital punishment and agree that it's revenge and nothing but blood for blood. It's researched and documented many times that it doesn't deter any crime.

Punishment does deter crime. Compare crime situation in Middle-East and in US or India.

Saudi Arabia made it illegal to be gay under penalty of death.

Even such a harsh punishment hasn't deterred it.

[Gerard]

I've told you guys before to call me Byakuren. "Hijiri" is just Japanese for "Saint." It's not a name. :P

And me thinking it was Finnish.....

Gerard

[aitm]

It is a simple game of morality that we have all played Shir. If we had the "power" to know for certain that a person had killed and had no issue with killing again and we have to power to kill him would we? I am of the opinion that I would rather kill him than risk him killing someone else, even if ....gasp...it is someone I don't like. Some suggest we take the chance of putting "it" in prison for the rest of its life on the hope it never escapes under the very "knowing" understanding that the chance of said murderer ever killing one of "their" family is less than it killing some other bastards family. I am not willing to do that to someone else family, but some people apparently have no objection to having your family fucked up and murdered because...well....they live hundreds maybe thousands of miles from a prison. Problem solved for them.

You don't want a murderer escaping from prison because they might murder an innocent.

But you're ok with the state executing prisoners, even though they do murder innocents.

If it was an innocent member of your family on death row, would it be acceptable collateral damage?

Once again, you're stepping outside my argument. My point is not that the system is ineffective, which we all know, my argument is not that process is expensive, which we all know. My argument is that if we know without a doubt a persons guilt do we favor execution. I do.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

My argument is that if we know without a doubt a persons guilt do we favor execution. I do.

See my above post: you're putting the "ought" before the "is." If we know without a doubt, we ought to execute them. Currently, there is no system in the world capable of producing such certainty.

[aitm]

My argument is that if we know without a doubt a persons guilt do we favor execution. I do.

See my above post: you're putting the "ought" before the "is." If we know without a doubt, we ought to execute them. Currently, there is no system in the world capable of producing such certainty.

I fully understand what you are saying, I am merely playing the morality "game" that I think would show, most people would favor execution if they knew for certain that someone butchered someone else and if cost was not an issue.

[Aupmanyav]

Even such a harsh punishment hasn't deterred it.

Person's choice. Violate the law, get the punishment.

.. if cost was not an issue.

Cost is not an issue in India. Perhaps it costs less than 100 US dollars (Hanging by neck, long drop).

[Plu]

Person's choice. Violate the law, get the punishment.

Actually no. Violate the law, get caught, get the punishment. All serious criminals assume they won't get caught, so they do not fear the punishment.

Cost is not an issue in India. Perhaps it costs less than 100 US dollars (Hanging by neck, long drop).

The cost is in catching and judging the person. Every layer of judgement they go through costs a lot of money.

[Shiranu]

Person's choice. Violate the law, get the punishment.

And if stealing is punishable by having your hand cut off or life in prison (which happens in the U.S., the latter anyways...) is it still justifiable to say, "They broke the law, they knew the consequences."?

What if it was a black man who killed a white man in self defense in South Carolina, which for him means he is guilty of murder, yet if it was a white killing a black in self defense it is legally self-defense?

The law is not black or white (no pun intended) and therefor does not have the necessary moral superiourity to dictate if someone should be mutilated or have their life taken from them. Only if the law was applied evenly to all people would that argument be justifiable. But this is a justice system that, around the world, is renowned for its bias and inefficiency, and I don't think any right minded person can justify that system being used to execute people.

In Utopia, it might be possible to have this discussion as a moral debate, but in as broken of world we live in it simply comes down to cold hard numbers... the government cannot be trusted with accurately insuring that the guilty are guilty and that the innocent aren't and therefor have zero right to take someone's life as they choose.

[Jason78]

Person's choice. Violate the law, get the punishment.

Actually no. Violate the law, get caught, get the punishment. All serious criminals assume they won't get caught, so they do not fear the punishment.

And there's the perpetrators in crimes of passion, who don't even stop to think.

[Mermaid]

It is a simple game of morality that we have all played Shir.

The word "morality" comes up again, and I think this is where the rub is. Morality is a continuum, everyone has a slightly (or even vastly) different definition of what "moral" is, and falls somewhere on a spectrum of "Don't do anything and sit quietly with your hands folded" to "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out!".

Some believe the lives of others are subject to scrutiny and judgment based on their actions, some do not. To some, this is conditional.

I think arguing about something like this is pointless because nobody is going to move anyone around on their own particular spectrum. Once you make an informed (informed being the operative word) decision in how you feel about something like this, is there any changing? Yeah. Pointless. I guess that makes me a misfit for a forum filled with arguers.  :)