Views on death penalty

[Oblivion437]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Being a beleiver in reincarnation I can maybe see it like taking a player out of the game for unneccessary roughness (to paraphraes my favorite fictional martian). They can try again next season.

Not everyone believes in reincarnation though. Some, like me, I think once you're dead, you're dead, that's it. All bets and debts are off forever. Though I do believe in the natural rights of man, I believe there are also natural limits, and those limits are where your rights infringe upon others rights. The limit in this case, I don't know, but I can name one man who deserved the chair when he got it...

A man stoned on PCP ran down a police officer who worked the Yankee Stadium during his escape from an armed robbery. He claimed he was so stoned he didn't even know what he was doing. The authorities didn't buy it, and he went to the chair for the only crime that can get you executed in New York: Murder comitted in the course of another crime.

Personally, I think that's a reasonable place to start, but I don't like the state's power to kill. I am truly mixed about this sort of thing. It seems like a serious problem to kill our citizens, even though they are convicted in a court of law. Courts can be bought however. Wiseguys will tell you that. Henry Hill's lawyer Louis 'Cop-out Louie' Strauss, usually only had to make a quick couple of nods to the judges and bondsmen to get his clients off. It's a little bit harder I should think, to manipulate the courts themselves into making a man guilty when he isn't. That requires more subversion.

I don't know, unless we had some infallable system, there's no justification for certain cases. Since no infallible system can be produced, I'll say maybe just plain can't justify it.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by Stratos: How would you make sure the fight is fair

One dozen armed guards watch over the proceedings to observe any misconduct (ie: carrying of illegal weapons)

what would happen if someone cheated

they would forfeit their honour and thus be put to death on the spot, no matter who they are.

and who would want to be the elected champion in the duel if there's a risk of them dying?

someone with such a passionate, intense hatred of the accused that risk of death means little compared with avenging the crime. Or alternatively, a hired professional.

How would the champions ever get an life insurance?

Life insurance? LIFE INSURANCE??!! This is your honour you're talking about! F**k the life insurance!

How much space would be required for the duel, would the Colosseum in Rome be enough? ( [img]tongue.gif[/img] )

Perhaps, although most duels in history have taken place in small areas, maybe 15m by 15m. If you wish to make a public spectacle of your private vendetta (which is a bit excessive really) then you might opt for a larger space.

[ 03-06-2004, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

[john]

If the person was convicted, and there was no doubt about his guilt and the crime was not one of passion.I feel the world doesn't have the room to spare for a person like say Charles Manson (or a similar type) than by all means execute him!Why waste the air to fill his lungs for even one more breath.We all will die sooner or later so making it sooner in some cases is no big deal.It would be no more cruel than shooting a mad dog!!

[skywalker]

Originally posted by john: If the person was convicted, and there was no doubt about his guilt and the crime was not one of passion.I feel the world doesn't have the room to spare for a person like say Charles Manson (or a similar type) than by all means execute him!Why waste the air to fill his lungs for even one more breath.We all will die sooner or later so making it sooner in some cases is no big deal.It would be no more cruel than shooting a mad dog!!

Many cases have been "proven" with no doubt of guilt and been overturned due to checking DNA evidence. There is too big a possibility that evidence can be tampered with to fill an agenda or by the ineptitude of the Defense Lawyer. Innocents should not be put to death for the cause of questionable justice.

Mark

[Gab]

Completely Against. Simply because 2 wrongs just don't make a right. It's more of a petty revenge thing. You kill someone so we get to kill you. Doesn't that sound just a little like revenge? It is good enough just to let the scum rot in jail.

My philosphy is to never take life because of one taken. Besides, the death penalty does nothing to lower crime. The criminals know the concequences of their actions and most aren't afraid to die.
Only a life can pay for a life isn't true. The person is gone and killing the criminal isn't going to bring the person back.

Plus innocent people have been killed!

[ 03-06-2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Gab ]

[Stratos]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: they would forfeit their honour and thus be put to death on the spot, no matter who they are.

Fairly irrelevant if you're the criminal and have a death penaly hanging over your head.

someone with such a passionate, intense hatred of the accused that risk of death means little compared with avenging the crime. Or alternatively, a hired professional.

Honour or not, who would pit themselves against a convicted, possibly professional, and most likely dangerous criminal?

Life insurance? LIFE INSURANCE??!! This is your honour you're talking about! F**k the life insurance!

I was thinking about my family. They'll have to have enough money for two funerals, mine and whoever it was I tried to avenge.

Perhaps, although most duels in history have taken place in small areas, maybe 15m by 15m. If you wish to make a public spectacle of your private vendetta (which is a bit excessive really) then you might opt for a larger space.

In other words; state sanctioned vendettas.

[ 03-06-2004, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

[Larry_OHF]

I see both sides of the matter, and cannot make up my mind which one is the "better" right...so I am left undecided.

[Illumina Drathiran'ar]

The duel to the death stance isn't that terribly out there.
If a child was killed, I'm sure a parent would gladly be passionate enough to do such a thing.

Unfortunately, I just don't think it's civilized enough for my liking. This is the same thing as the death penalty, to sate the need for revenge. It's all vaguely barbaric, and out there enough for me to disagree... though in theory it *does* sound interesting. I will give you that.

[Maethias]

Against. Personally, i only believe one has the clear, undeniable right to kill another when they are in direct defense of their lives or of their health. any other way and there are alot of grey areas. i dont like the fact that the government has the right to kill, simply on principle and also on the grounds that though the courts are good, they are not perfect, and innocents have been known to be killed. Personally i dont like the idea of killing anyone for the sake of justice, but since that doesnt seem to be changing any time soon i shall keep my oppinions practical.

[ 03-06-2004, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Maethias ]

[Timber Loftis]

dont like the fact that the government has the right to kill

Again, see my earlier post, as this is illogical. Using this logic, the government also does not have the right to imprison or fine someone. Ergo, the governemnt has no right to punish.

That's absurd.

If the price of taking a life is known to equal death, the government is not taking life, but merely enforcing a price the killer agreed to pay.

As for the imperfect system, as I've said, that's another issue. One that does happen to be dispositive for me.