death penalty?

Well if you keep them locked up for life for a serious crime such as killing someone don't you think it's worth is spending those few dollars a year to keep him alive and suffering like the family and friends are suffering over the loss? I think people would put down their pay checks to have someone that killed a loved one in jail permanently for the rest of their lives...

 

No...? Unless the family wants to pay to keep him alive, it is not worth the loss of funds and time. How much can they want him alive if they aren't willing to pay for it? And if they aren't able to pay for it, then it is still not worth the loss.

But again, this is if you can determine guilt with one hundred percent certainty and he will be a threat as long as he is alive.

 

So... you agree with everything I said, you just don't like the word justice, so picked an argument over it? How odd...

 

Well then what do you oppose that you do? just kill them? that does nothing at all to teach them a lesson. They don't have time to contemplate. And if I was the one in charge I would have the guards constantly remind them of what they did and never show them kindness. Also if he changes how he acts and actually contemplates on the things he's done which you CAN tell when someone is seriously appologetic unless he's a complete pshycopath then go ahead and take him out of his missery... ._.'

 

That is essentially correct. I dislike the notion of justice because it is a moral concept. No one deserves any kind of treatment from another person, good or bad. When you kill someone, make sure that it is not because you hate them, but because everyone else will suffer if they do not die. You will kill fewer people this way and are far less likely to make mistakes in calculating how much of a threat said person will be.

In essence, I am changing the reasons for killing someone while agreeing on the general idea of cases. Justice is an obsolete concept and I do not tolerate it, so a form of utilitarianism is taking its place in my eyes; one that will not allow multiple interpretations and leaves no room for doubt based on emotional convictions.

Why would they need a lesson? They would be dead. The lesson would be wasted on someone who would not live to act on it.

If you think that there is even a slight chance for him to change his mind and come back around, then you should not give the death penalty in the first place. My argument assumes that you can prove that he will never change his ways as long as he is alive. If he is going to stay dangerous, then you have no reason to teach him a lesson, because it will not help him. Killing him will take everything's stead, because only after he is dead will the threat be eliminated.

 

This has probably already been said, but the Death Penalty is cruel and unusual punishment in the U.S. right?

My real question is: If the murderer (or whatever kind of crime he/she committed) is insane, is he/she still considered as another murderer, or is he/she put under a special punishment?

 

Well, if we're talking about a plea of insanity, typically a person identified as insane is admitted to an asylum for rehabilitation. Seems a little stilted to me; rehabilitation ought to be more widespread. Most prison systems are full of walking dead with no chance at repentance.

 

Then what's the point of keeping them in jail?


Well, I guess that's where the Death Penalty comes in.

 

That is a good question. For anyone who has seen the film M, you might think that an insane person would be put into a mental health facility instead of a normal prison. This is correct as far as I know.

 

And if they aren't?

I just don't see the big deal coming from dishing the death penalty out to an insane person.

 

Well, the thing is that there are people who want to believe that insane people can be cured, and I am sure that the state profits from it somehow or they wouldn't do it. I haven't looked into how they would, but still. Charging the family for the criminal's medical bills? I don't know...

 

I stopped reading there.

It's not that I don't believe that it can be done, it's that I don't think it's necessary to cure them after they've committed the crime.

Just put them out of their misery and... well.... kill them.



Edit: Don't take this too literally. I'm not exactly sure what the answer to this is. Then again, this is why this thread is in Discussion.

 

I could've stopped reading here.

Why not? It is the most direct method to right the original wrong. Killing is simply another wrong, another imbalance. Killing is a sign of weakness, an admission of defeat. "We cannot handle this problem, so we would rather oust it altogether." We can do better than that.

If you didn't mean it, you oughtn't have said it, Discussion section or no.

 

You've got me. I have nothing else to say.

 

Agreed.

Even worse is that you haven't made an attempt to understand insane people and haven't tried to come to terms with the fact that they may simply be unstable instead of truly threatening. The argument behind rehabilitation is that insanity is not one's fault, and you can be cured from a mental illness as well as any other illness. Imagine if there were a virus that made people more violent; would you want them to kill you if you had it? That is the kind of logic that is being applied.

 

I'm exactly on your side with this... <.<' lol (I haven't been in a forum for a while so i'm bleh with my explanations...)
But yeah, if you think that they are able to change then give them a chance. But if you know that they don't have one at all then might as well not spend the time/money unless the family is willing to pay the bill to keep that person alive and in prison...

 

Justice is not revenge. That's just silly.

Revenge is revenge.

Revenge is a part of justice.

If you are going to kill someone specifically because they have wronged you, then its revenge.

If you are going to kill someone because its will reduce damage to the community, that is justice.

Its odd that we are talking about the same concept, but arguing over a word.

 

We are not talking about the same concept. If justice includes revenge, then it is an obsolete concept and I do not support it. I agree that they overlap, but justice is a concept that contains things I dislike while my own wording does not. If you believe that justice exists, then you will not agree with me in all cases, so the concepts are not truly the same.

 

What you're proposing is emotionless culling?

 

That is correct. Seek the least harm to the greatest number, and that is all.