Law Enforcement People are Hypocrites?

[rianvice]

The people who sentence murderers to death, and the executioners...aren't they sinners? If you are not supposed to kill people...aren't they breaking one of the Commandements? They are hypocrites, are they not?

They tell people they should not kill, and yet they kill the murderer as a punishment...
Doesn't this count as them being sinners?

[Vlerchan]

I think Christians try to get around that by claiming it's a sin to murder but not necessarily a sin to kill. Get me? That doesn't make me any less opposed to the Death Penalty, however.

The bible - specifically the Old Testament - does outline quite a lot of actions punishable by death, though. (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Actions_which_demand_the_death_penalty_in_the_Old_Testament) There's exceptions to every rule, as they say, and God's rules are certainly no different - murder, you'll notice, falls among the list of exceptions so I guess Conservatives are in the clear regardless of what way you decide to spin 'kill'. Warning: RationalWiki - the site in the link - tends to be particularly snarky and overtly liberal and atheistic.

[britishboy]

I doubt many are Christians so follow law not 'commandments'

[kylem1229]

Not everyone is a Christian, also we do not have an "official religion", meaning our nation doesnt follow the 10 commandments

[Stronk Serb]

The prisoners can be put to work. That way instead of wasting money, you can wound a profit.

[britishboy]

The prisoners can be put to work. That way instead of wasting money, you can wound a profit.

nice idea but why take a job away from a good guy?

Not everyone is a Christian, also we do not have an "official religion", meaning our nation doesnt follow the 10 commandments
good point

[rianvice]

Ohhhh....you all have good points...and stupid me *smacks self*, I wasn't even thinking about atheists. I go to a Catholic school and people seem to be fine with people getting the death sentence there...but they are always ranting about how humans are not supposed to take other humans lives...

And on that list, (If I understood correctly) is that a victim of rape will be punished? What? That's kind of messed up...

[Vlerchan]

The prisoners can be put to work. That way instead of wasting money, you can wound a profit.
So slavery, basically. I probably wouldn't be as strongly against that had there been no mention of profit but forcing anyone to work against their will sounds horribly similar.

And on that list, (If I understood correctly) is that a victim of rape will be punished? What? That's kind of messed up...
Most religious dogmas tend to be quite outdated. It's why there is very few individuals you'll find advocating for their return. In the Middle East, however, several nations run on Islamic Law. In the UAE, over the Summer, a Danish woman was jailed for reporting a rape crime. It was only after huge international outcry that she was released - the rapist was never caught.

[Stronk Serb]

nice idea but why take a job away from a good guy?


I mean government projects. Here in Serbia government uses private contractors to build and maintain everything, roads, schools, hospitals etc. Instead of draining extra momey, why not actually save it up? The private contractors here have lot's of work without the government.

So slavery, basically. I probably wouldn't be as strongly against that had there been no mention of profit but forcing anyone to work against their will sounds horribly similar.

The thing is, slaves had no rights of healthcare and food. The prisoners will. Some people say that imprisonment is a form of slavery, that elementary education is slavery even. They couldn't control themselves, now they will have to work. Labor can be used as a form of correction also. They had a choice they chose to be made what they are. Slavery means that a man has not been given a choice.

Double Post Merged~ Red Velvet

[Vlerchan]

The thing is, slaves had no rights of healthcare and food. The prisoners will. Some people say that imprisonment is a form of slavery, that elementary education is slavery even. They couldn't control themselves, now they will have to work. Labor can be used as a form of correction also. They had a choice they chose to be made what they are. Slavery means that a man has not been given a choice.

Dress it up nice as you want. It's still slavery. Regardless of the actions of an individual (s)he still has rights - the right not to work at no wage (or at all, even) and be exploited by the state for monetary gain should be there somewhere - and whilst hard labour may be perceived by some as good way of correction - not by me, however - there are a number of much better way to rehabilitate prisoners - re-education, for example, teach them useful skills so they don't get sucked back into crime on release.

I won't get in to how many workers rights this must certainly break. That is if they're still considered workers and not simply state subjects, or something along those lines.

Slavery (N): The subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work

[Sugaree]

Slavery (N): The subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work

You're an idiot.

HURR MAKING PEOPLE REPAY THEIR DEBTS TO SOCIETY IS SLAVERY DURR

If all they're going to do is sit in a fucking cell all damn day with three square meals, they might as well be put to work rebuilding things. If you do the crime and are found guilty, you have to do the time. There is no question against that. Yet, according to you, THAT must be slavery because it's against a person's will to do the time they need to serve in order that their debt to society is repaid. Also, the state makes no money off of schools it makes or hospitals it builds; that's not supposed to be the intent of the state when it comes to building public services. If you were building a private school or private hospital? Sure. But a state run school or state run hospital does not give money back to the government; it takes money from it. And who says that their rights are being violated? When you commit certain crimes, like murder or rape, you pretty much relinquish any rights you have; you don't deserve to be given tax payer funded meals if you murdered ten or twelve people or serially raped for a decade.

Again, you're an idiot. Yes, it's forcing them into work. But what else are they going to do? What message is it sending to future wanna-be criminals if they see people just sitting in cells all day getting all these luxuries? They need to know that, if they commit a crime and are found guilty and sentenced, that they'll be put to work. That's not slavery. What WOULD be slavery would be any random citizen taking another random citizen and forcing them to do hard labor. This is nothing like that. Learn before you speak, son.

[Vlerchan]

I've cut out the Ed Hominem. It was needless and detracts from the point you're trying to make.

...

If all they're going to do is sit in a fucking cell all damn day with three square meals, they might as well be put to work rebuilding things. If you do the crime and are found guilty, you have to do the time. There is no question against that. [b]Yet, according to you, THAT must be slavery because it's against a person's will to do the time they need to serve in order that their debt to society is repaid.[b]
The prisoners can be put to work. That way instead of wasting money, [b]you can wound a profit.
Firstly, I'm against the governments engineering a profit from 'free' prison labour - Key Word: Profit. I don't think I ever mentioned being against prisons in general which is what you do infer here, however (bolded). Whilst I would hold slight reservations against the government working me at all I accept that it tends to be necessary in order to shift the burden away from the taxpayer. I would see working for ones keep as justified.

It's with privately-run prisons who hire out their prisoners to large multinational corporations that the main problem lies. Running a prison has turned into a rather lucrative buisness which I find ... reprehensible, to say the least. Exploiting people is exploiting people is exploiting people regardless of who they are. (Admittedly, I made no attempt to make that clear in my previous post; but then we were strictly discussing state-run prisons.)

Also, the state makes no money off of schools it makes or hospitals it builds; that's not supposed to be the intent of the state when it comes to building public services. If you were building a private school or private hospital? Sure. But a state run school or state run hospital does not give money back to the government; it takes money from it.
The idea of state-run schools and state-run hospitals and state-run services in general is that they provide a service, not make a profit. We're discussing engineering prisons in order to make a profit here, right?

And who says that their rights are being violated? When you commit certain crimes, like murder or rape, you pretty much relinquish any rights you have; you don't deserve to be given tax payer funded meals if you murdered ten or twelve people or serially raped for a decade.
I'm going to agree to disagree on the relinquishment of all rights upon incarceration. It tends to be put forward as reasoning for why we should murder murderers, too.

I would like to point out however that - and I'm sure you know this - you can go to jail for more than just rape and murder. Should I have all my basic human rights relinquished because I was caught with a half-ounce of weed in my back pocket? (it's hypothetical). I certainly hope that the answer is no.

Yes, it's forcing them into work. But what else are they going to do? What message is it sending to future wanna-be criminals if they see people just sitting in cells all day getting all these luxuries? They need to know that, if they commit a crime and are found guilty and sentenced, that they'll be put to work. That's not slavery. What WOULD be slavery would be any random citizen taking another random citizen and forcing them to do hard labor. This is nothing like that. Learn before you speak, son.
I'm starting to wonder now if you simply skimmed through my post(s) and simply decided this was a good as time as ever to act like an ass. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, though. I'm not talking about prisoners working to earn their keep, I'm talking about prisoners working to earn a profit for the state/private enterprise. I also wonder where you got the idea of 'prison luxuries' from - beats me.

It's late here. This was rushed because I'm looking forward to sleeping. If I've misrepresented any of your points - which I don't think I have - let me know.

[Sugaree]

The idea of state-run schools and state-run hospitals and state-run services in general is that they provide a service, not make a profit. We're discussing engineering prisons in order to make a profit here, right?

On the contrary, I never mentioned making prisons in order to make a profit. I find that to be reprehensible. Private prisons and the companies which run them should be outright banned, as they don't have the public's true interest at heart, which is to keep the bad guys where they belong. If you want to talk about that, I would suggest making another thread for it. It would definitely be a welcome sight.


I'm going to agree to disagree on the relinquishment of all rights upon incarceration. It tends to be put forward as reasoning for why we should murder murderers, too.

I would like to point out however that - and I'm sure you know this - you can go to jail for more than just rape and murder. Should I have all my basic human rights relinquished because I was caught with a half-ounce of weed in my back pocket? (it's hypothetical). I certainly hope that the answer is no.

Of course the answer is no, that's why I said certain crimes. I don't believe that drug possession is any type of wrong doing, as it's similar to arresting someone for holding a cigarette. But for high crimes, such as murder, rape, molestation, any crime which severely alters the life of one person or lives of others certainly relinquishes the individual guilty of said crime of any rights they have aside from their Constitutional rights (here in the United States at least).

I also wonder where you got the idea of 'prison luxuries' from - beats me.

Here in the United States, prisoners get a lot of things which should be earned based on merit during their stay. Most of general population gets three square meals a day, bedding, a few hours of open air, and "extra curricular activities" of sorts. All of this, of course, is funded on the dime of the state, who has to go to the taxpayer in order to get that dime.

You see, even for state-run prisons, so much more money can be saved in the long run. This is my main point in the argument. I do not see a point to provide them a mattress, no matter how thin. They can do with a pillow and blanket. I don't see a point in giving them three meals a day, they can get by with one. They want fresh air? That's all well and good, but they have to earn it through good behavior. Same goes for their extra curricular activities; earned through merit, not given as a basic right. It bothers me that so many people consider things such as a mattress or three meals a day as basic human "rights" and "entitlements" when we aren't even entitled to the clothes we have on our backs on a daily basis. If there are poor people on our streets who get by without even one meal a day, why does a prisoner get to have three meals a day for free? Why does the prisoner get to stay in a warm bed while the poor have to wither in the cold?

[Elysium]

Depends where and who, but be careful not to generalize. That only applies to select handfuls of law enforcement.

[Walter Powers]

First, law enforcement doesn't make the laws. As their name illustrates, they enforce them. They don't legalize the death penalty; they do what the politicians and judges tell them to.

Second, it is not hypocritical to end a very evil persons life for ending an innocent persons. That's like saying the life of the murderer and the victim are equal in value , which is insulting and demeaning to the victim's family.

The prisoners can be put to work. That way instead of wasting money, you can wound a profit.

I'd agree with you if we were talking misdemeanors and lower level felons, how ever it's not really realistic to have mass murders and terrorists in much of any sort of workforce. It'd also be a reward compared to capital punishment, which isn't right.

[Stronk Serb]

Dress it up nice as you want. It's still slavery. Regardless of the actions of an individual (s)he still has rights - the right not to work at no wage (or at all, even) and be exploited by the state for monetary gain should be there somewhere - and whilst hard labour may be perceived by some as good way of correction - not by me, however - there are a number of much better way to rehabilitate prisoners - re-education, for example, teach them useful skills so they don't get sucked back into crime on release.

I won't get in to how many workers rights this must certainly break. That is if they're still considered workers and not simply state subjects, or something along those lines.

Slavery (N): The subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into work

What are you talking about hard work? The prisoners will work 8-10 hours, just like regular workers do. The state can pass a law that says that the prisoners have to pay for everything they got while incarcerated. That means they work for a wage, because they will get everything by working. The prisoners will have access to education. For whichever job you sign up for, you need to learn how to do it. For example, young mechanics will be monitored by senior ones who would pretty much act as their mentors.

First, law enforcement doesn't make the laws. As their name illustrates, they enforce them. They don't legalize the death penalty; they do what the politicians and judges tell them to.

Yes, but the public should have a bit of more say in that.

Second, it is not hypocritical to end a very evil persons life for ending an innocent persons. That's like saying the life of the murderer and the victim are equal in value , which is insulting and demeaning to the victim's family.

They are. They are all human. Killing one means that no one like him will exist any more. You are unrepeatable. If we go for an eye for an eye, we would all be blind.

I'd agree with you if we were talking misdemeanors and lower level felons, how ever it's not really realistic to have mass murders and terrorists in much of any sort of workforce.

It is. If they hey want to sleep on a concrete floor, without blankets, pillows and a mattress, get cold meals once a day, shower once in a week, get minimum medical attention, and be alone in a cell all day, they can. Or they can get a comfy bed, three hot meals, all needed medical attention and some time in the yard, yeah they can. They should work. They should maintain roads, build schools, hospitals, towers, work in factories, maintain government-owned vehicles (except the military ones). And terrorists will not be put to outside work, maybe put them on jobs in the correctional facility? Like cleaning the hallways, bathrooms, cells, the courtyard. All of those will be done under the supervision of guards.

It'd also be a reward compared to capital punishment, which isn't right.

Taking someone's life just because they did something horrible is still wrong. If we went eye for an eye, the whole world would be blind. Prisons are made to correct and contain.

[EddietheZombie]

I think Christians try to get around that by claiming it's a sin to murder but not necessarily a sin to kill. Get me? That doesn't make me any less opposed to the Death Penalty, however.

The bible - specifically the Old Testament - does outline quite a lot of actions punishable by death, though. There's exceptions to every rule, as they say, and God's rules are certainly no different - murder, you'll notice, falls among the list of exceptions so I guess Conservatives are in the clear regardless of what way you decide to spin 'kill'. Warning: RationalWiki - the site in the link - tends to be particularly snarky and overtly liberal and atheistic.
If you notice thats the Old Testament which was(mostly) thrown out when Jesus came.
The people who sentence murderers to death, and the executioners...aren't they sinners? If you are not supposed to kill people...aren't they breaking one of the Commandements? They are hypocrites, are they not?

They tell people they should not kill, and yet they kill the murderer as a punishment...
Doesn't this count as them being sinners?
Killing someone because they took another human beings isnt wrong. And there are certain people that are beyond reform that murder for the sake of murder. What good are they in prison?
So slavery, basically. I probably wouldn't be as strongly against that had there been no mention of profit but forcing anyone to work against their will sounds horribly similar.

I think they should repay their debt and the debt of the family of the victim(s). If they killed a father and the mother was a stay at home mom then she has to get a job, bills pile up, emotional trauma, ect. then they criminal gets to stay in prison with no debts but his own, then how is that fair? He caused it he should right the wrong in some form. Everything has a Domino Effect as i described above. Even selling drugs can have a Domino Effect(not necessarily marijuana, but more like cocaine, meth, ect). Example: Guy uses cocaine, gets addicted, needs more drugs, buys more, runs out of money, robs a business or family, possible murder, ect.
Dress it up nice as you want. It's still slavery. Regardless of the actions of an individual (s)he still has rights - the right not to work at no wage (or at all, even) and be exploited by the state for monetary gain should be there somewhere - and whilst hard labour may be perceived by some as good way of correction - not by me, however - there are a number of much better way to rehabilitate prisoners - re-education, for example, teach them useful skills so they don't get sucked back into crime on release.
There are some people beyond reform. Try reforming Charles Manson(which is still in prison), Ed Gein(yes i know he was executed), and any other low life. In a movie, ill give Batman The Dark Knight for example, were you hoping that Batman was going to "Reform" the Joker? Or Imprison him? Someone like that, that just kills for no reason is someone that doesnt need to live. If they dont value human life, why should we value theirs?
They are. They are all human. Killing one means that no one like him will exist any more. You are unrepeatable. If we go for an eye for an eye, we would all be blind.
While in some cases that may be true, if you execute someone with no value for human life that is someone like Charles Manson, how does that effect you? The only thing it effects is the population of murderers in the prisons. And it is also intimidation to other criminals. If they see that we dont give a shit about their life if they take someone elses, they would think twice about it(Again unless they are on drugs or are just deranged.)


Ill give everyone yet another example. In the movie No Country for Old Men, Tommy Lee Jones narrates at the beginning(This is not a direct quote) and says: A boy killed a 14 year old girl. The newspapers said it was a crime of passion, but he told me there wasnt any passion to it. He told me that he had been planning to kill someone for as long as he can remember, he said if they turned him out right now, he'd do it again. Said he knew he was going to hell.

Now someone like that? Are you going to reform them? What about pedophiles? They may seem reformed but how can you tell?

[Vlerchan]

On the contrary, I never mentioned making prisons in order to make a profit. I find that to be reprehensible. Private prisons and the companies which run them should be outright banned, as they don't have the public's true interest at heart, which is to keep the bad guys where they belong.
The question was rhetorical. I was, the entire time, talking about designing prisons in order to produce profits. I've long since come to the conclusion that you're simply misinterpreting my points - which, I'll admit, aren't horribly clear in this case; the blame lies on me - and pushing a near-similar argument to me in terms of how prisons should be run. I'll repeat for clarification, try broaden my argument as much as possible. Whilst I am against the exploitation of prisoners for the state/private enterprises goal of achieving supernormal profits - or any profits, really - I concede and accept that in order to shift the burden of their upkeep from the taxpayer it is necessary to put them to work. However, this work must only be undertaken to provide for their own upkeep and not to provide for bigger profit margins for the prison - I don't believe the prison should be making any profits off prison labour whatsoever. The prisoners should be paid at the current minimum wage - which, at the moment, they don't: all rights (that I'm aware of), including those granted to the average worker, are relinquished upon incarceration - and not anything below that. Get me? I'm not sure how exactly I can expand on that without becoming redundant. (This applies to Comrade Mike, too - I'm against profiting from prison labour, not actual prison labour.)

Of course the answer is no, that's why I said certain crimes. I don't believe that drug possession is any type of wrong doing, as it's similar to arresting someone for holding a cigarette. But for high crimes, such as murder, rape, molestation, any crime which severely alters the life of one person or lives of others certainly relinquishes the individual guilty of said crime of any rights they have aside from their Constitutional rights (here in the United States at least).
I missed the 'certain' - knew that jab was coming too easy:/ - but, regardless I'm still not in anyway for the relinquishment of all rights upon incarceration. Again, I can only suggest that we agree to disagree and move on; neither of us can rationally justify our positions - though, paying them anywhere near minimum wage is avoidable due to prisoners lacking their usual workers rights has some basis to it - and it's only going to get circular.

Here in the United States, prisoners get a lot of things which should be earned based on merit during their stay. Most of general population gets three square meals a day, bedding, a few hours of open air, and "extra curricular activities" of sorts. All of this, of course, is funded on the dime of the state, who has to go to the taxpayer in order to get that dime.
Again, as previously stated, I support prisoners working at a fair wage to earn their keep.

You see, even for state-run prisons, so much more money can be saved in the long run. This is my main point in the argument. I do not see a point to provide them a mattress, no matter how thin. They can do with a pillow and blanket. I don't see a point in giving them three meals a day, they can get by with one. They want fresh air? That's all well and good, but they have to earn it through good behavior. Same goes for their extra curricular activities; earned through merit, not given as a basic right. It bothers me that so many people consider things such as a mattress or three meals a day as basic human "rights" and "entitlements" when we aren't even entitled to the clothes we have on our backs on a daily basis. If there are poor people on our streets who get by without even one meal a day, why does a prisoner get to have three meals a day for free? Why does the prisoner get to stay in a warm bed while the poor have to wither in the cold?
Prisoners should live at a standard of living that would be normally affordable to them if they were benefiting from social welfare allowances - this obviously differs from nation to nation, though I've always thought Ireland's social welfare benefits provides a reasonable standard of living. That would include the benefits of 3 square meals a day and a good sanitary and sleeping environment - in a first world, socialised democracy such as Ireland I would consider them rather basic entitlements, at least affordable on the minimum wage. Benefits - and I'll disagree again with you here - should also reach out to include: daily access to fresh air - which, as far as I'm concerned should never be treated as a commodity to be easily given and just as easily taken away - access to exercise - which can be couples with fresh air - and access to education - which, I believe should be made mandatory for those on shorter sentences. These benefits should never have to be earned but, in instances of bad behaviour, can be temporarily retracted. I understand that there are certain individuals living under my defined minimum - though this is more the case in the USA than Ireland, I'd say - but I'd be unable to support intentionally imposing lesser conditions on anyone. Note: Key to understanding my position is my (idyllic, perhaps) view that prison should focus more on rehabilitation then punishment - not that punishment isn't still important - and that everyone individual (in a stable mental state) can be reformed.

There are some people beyond reform. Try reforming Charles Manson(which is still in prison), Ed Gein(yes i know he was executed), and any other low life. In a movie, ill give Batman The Dark Knight for example, were you hoping that Batman was going to "Reform" the Joker? Or Imprison him?
The Joker is crazy - sick - you can't judge him as you would a normal individual - that's not saying what he does isn't wrong but rather he needs help, which the legal system should be able to afford him. I can't comment on the other two because I'm not familiar with their cases.

And the rehabilitation takes place whilst imprisoned, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

And it is also intimidation to other criminals. If they see that we dont give a shit about their life if they take someone elses, they would think twice about it(Again unless they are on drugs or are just deranged.)
This is straight up false. Studies show it's not a deterrent. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates)

If you want to argue capital punishment, though, make a thread. I'm sure I've derailed this one enough without possibly getting into one of the most circular arguments available. It's the reason I avoided most of your points.

[EddietheZombie]

The Joker is crazy - sick - you can't judge him as you would a normal individual - that's not saying what he does isn't wrong but rather he needs help, which the legal system should be able to afford him. I can't comment on the other two because I'm not familiar with their cases.

And the rehabilitation takes place whilst imprisoned, the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Its not derailed, its still on the subject of "Is capital punishment wrong". Let me get you familiar with the two other deranged murderers I mentioned.

Charles Manson is a maniac that got a few supporters together and... well ill just give you the link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson

Ed Gein was a murderer that was the inspiration for the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Gein
Here are a couple more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer

This isnt some fantasy world where people can change or you can change them. And, just say you were a politician, tell me what you would do if they stopped doing capital punishment and "Reformed" people like this, and they went back out and killed again, do you want to be the one that has to tell the family of the deceased that its was your idea and we COULD have used capital punishment but decided that "Reform" was better and can make them "Law abiding citizens"?
I didnt reply to your other post because you didnt give my "points" the same.

[TheBigUnit]

The prisoners can be put to work. That way instead of wasting money, you can wound a profit.

id probably go with that but thatll never happen here

[project_icarus]

Okay. Alright.

OP.
The people who sentence murderers to death, and the executioners...aren't they sinners? If you are not supposed to kill people...aren't they breaking one of the Commandements? They are hypocrites, are they not?

They tell people they should not kill, and yet they kill the murderer as a punishment...
Doesn't this count as them being sinners?

For the most part, I don't believe in the death penalty. But that is not due to my religious beliefs (rather, lack of). In Western Australia, the death penalty has been outlawed since the early nineteen-sixties.

You're ignoring the fact that a decent amount of LEOs everywhere aren't Christian and if they do not preach this particular commandment, no, they are not hypocrites, and they are not sinners (maybe in your eyes, but you have to realise that this means nothing to them or anybody else).

I doubt many are Christians so follow law not 'commandments'

This. Given that in many developed countries, it's a requirement to put that aside and become blue whilst they are on their duties - they are no longer individual people, they are law enforcement officers. I know that what I just said could come across, wrong, but oh well. Point is, LEOs are there to uphold their law and assist their community, not to impose beliefs on others.

The prisoners can be put to work. That way instead of wasting money, you can wound a profit.

there are a number of much better way to rehabilitate prisoners - re-education, for example, teach them useful skills so they don't get sucked back into crime on release.

I think that this is perfectly reasonable, so long as it does not turn to blatant slavery. In Western Australia, we have several types of prisons, one of the low-security kind of facilities that are in various parts of the state are prison farms. They section lower-risk prisoners who have been approved by the Department for Corrective Services. The prison farms do pretty much what Comrade Mike has suggested.

And to the second post I quoted just here, I'll note that the prison farms attempt to train the prisoners with skills that can be used elsewhere in the wider community.

Karnet, W.A. Prison Farm (http://www.correctiveservices.wa.gov.au/prisons/prison-locations/karnet.aspx)

Ohhhh....you all have good points...and stupid me *smacks self*, I wasn't even thinking about atheists.

And you disregarded every other religion that works off of different beliefs.

Now someone like that? Are you going to reform them? What about pedophiles? They may seem reformed but how can you tell?

I'm fairly certain that you cannot change paedophilia, much like any other paraphilia (and keep in mind that homosexuality was/is considered merely a paraphilia by some). Imagine forcing yourself to stop being attracted to... whatever you are attracted to. A person who is known to be dangerous (has committed an offence previously or has shown a tendency to be prone to committing an offence of that nature) in this sense should be kept under a very close eye or just remain imprisoned. But if they haven't committed an offence, there's not much anybody can do and any attempt to 'rehabilitate' such a person will be pretty much entirely useless.

[Korashk]

Vlerchan, when prisoners work in prison they get paid.

[Vlerchan]

Its not derailed, its still on the subject of "Is capital punishment wrong".

If you insist.

"The right to life and dignity are the most important of all human rights and this must be demonstrated by the state in everything that it does, including the way it punishes criminals."
-Justice Arthur Chaskalson, President of the South African Constitutional Court, 1995.

I began with the above quote because it expresses my opinion my perfectly and more concisely than I could possibly hope to word it myself. The right to life is inarguably the most important of every individuals rights. Nobody, as far as I'm concerned, should ever have the right or the authority to take it away - but that's merely an opinion; now to the argument.

I'll start with a continuation of a previous rebuttal: the top argument in favour tends to be deterrence, as Christian Theologian Thomas Aquinas once wrote: "The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state," and I don't doubt he believed it. He didn't, however, have access to statistics. I see no reason to repeat the statistics that I posted earlier - the ones supported my view that capital punishment is in fact not a deterrent in the US - but I will add further proof. That proof can be found in Canada, a nation that abolished the death penalty 1976 to the horror of many who felt that murder rates would only rise as a result. Spoiler: They didn't. Canada's murder rate actually dropped the following year, and for the next twenty would continue to fluctuate, never once reaching above the figure on the year of abolition, however (2.8 per 1000). In 2006 - latest figures I could find - the homicide rate was only 1.9 per 1000, that's a rather significant drop. Why? Well, it's important to remember motives behind crimes tend to be one of the following three: compulsion, passion and profit. The last - profit - tends to be the only one where rational thought it added to the equation and, even then, few murderers ever anticipate ever being apprehended and, as such, the death penalty is not as much a deterrent that many individuals seem to believe it is.Leading criminologists agree, too (http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/4043) - though you'll have to clink into the PDF on the page linked to read what exactly they have to say on the matter.

I'm going to avoid the shady morality - on the states part, mostly - surrounding the issue and the perceived hypocrisy in murdering murderers in the hope of deterring more because I'm sure I've no chance of convincing you that way. I'll similarly fly over the economic arguments - I'll add though that it tends to cost a lot more. (http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost) - because I personally don't believe that lack of funding should get in the way of delivering justice, though the figures are interesting nonetheless.

It's the infinitude of death and it's irreversiblity irregardless of later findings that I'll concentrate on last instead. Every judges verdict of death is always sorrounded by some degree of uncertainty no matter how clear cut the case may seem. You can never be sure that the convicted is 100% guilty - confessions aside - and in the event of a mistake such mistakes can be fatal - literally. The concept of guilt itself only means that there is a convincing level of evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt; it's not - and never has been - a measure of certainty. Then take 'doubt', a legal term that has always held some degree of ambiguity and subjectivity about it, and one not made any easier to judge by 'reasonable' proceeding it.

And getting it wrong does occur, we've been realising it more and more over the years since the introduction of DNA analysis. Exoneration rates aren't exactly low at an average of 3.1 a year between 1973 and 1999 and 5 a year between 2000 and 2011. As of December 2012 there's been 142 exonerations - that's 142 people; real human beings that could've almost died on account of your institutionalized barbarism. These are only the almosts, however, posthumous pardons still happen (http://m.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/1935) and people do die due to these tragic miscarriages of justice occurring under the penal system that you support - if that's not enough to denounce it I don't know what is.

This isnt some fantasy world where people can change or you can change them. And, just say you were a politician, tell me what you would do if they stopped doing capital punishment and "Reformed" people like this, and they went back out and killed again, do you want to be the one that has to tell the family of the deceased that its was your idea and we COULD have used capital punishment but decided that "Reform" was better and can make them "Law abiding citizens"?
Individuals like Bundy - who I recognize - and Manson are, as you put it, 'deranged' and 'maniac's and hence do not fall into my category of individuals with a healthy mind that could possibly be reformed. More importantly however is the fact that serial killers will never be released regardless how reformed they are perceived to have become - the public simply wouldn't have it. Of course I don't see why if it is felt that certain individuals may be a danger to society on release that it's not possible to keep them locked up rather than murder them ourselves. Seems to work for every other Western nation already.

Vlerchan, when prisoners work in prison they get paid.
I'd like to see how much. From what I've read they're paid pittons, exploited by major corporations who use them as a replacement for oursourced workers in China, and such.

Though, I'll admit to not being wholly knowledgeable about the American prison system. Rapid, emotional responses on sighting something I disagree with aren't always the best course of action, it seems.

EDIT:
I go to a Catholic school and people seem to be fine with people getting the death sentence there...
The Catholic Church is actually opposed - or mostly opposed, anyway - to capital punishment (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/angel/procon/popestate.html) - not that much of the congregation abides as closely to the churches teachings as they once did. I go to an Irish Catholic school which is pretty unanimously against the death penalty; but then so is most of the population.

[EddietheZombie]

I'm fairly certain that you cannot change paedophilia, much like any other paraphilia (and keep in mind that homosexuality was/is considered merely a paraphilia by some). Imagine forcing yourself to stop being attracted to... whatever you are attracted to. A person who is known to be dangerous (has committed an offence previously or has shown a tendency to be prone to committing an offence of that nature) in this sense should be kept under a very close eye or just remain imprisoned. But if they haven't committed an offence, there's not much anybody can do and any attempt to 'rehabilitate' such a person will be pretty much entirely useless.
If they havent committed an offense then i think a form of rehab would work. But if they have, why use taxpayer money to keep scum like that alive? If the death penalty is a no-go then i say give them some seeds and have them make a garden and live off the land for life. Nothing more than seeds. If they just want to kill each other, let them, its their nature and nothing can change that. Some of them have said they want to die just to see what hell is like.
If you insist.

"The right to life and dignity are the most important of all human rights and this must be demonstrated by the state in everything that it does, including the way it punishes criminals."
-Justice Arthur Chaskalson, President of the South African Constitutional Court, 1995.

I began with the above quote because it expresses my opinion my perfectly and more concisely than I could possibly hope to word it myself. The right to life is inarguably the most important of every individuals rights. Nobody, as far as I'm concerned, should ever have the right or the authority to take it away - but that's merely an opinion; now to the argument.

I'll start with a continuation of a previous rebuttal: the top argument in favour tends to be deterrence, as Christian Theologian Thomas Aquinas once wrote: "The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in order to protect the peace of the state," and I don't doubt he believed it. He didn't, however, have access to statistics. I see no reason to repeat the statistics that I posted earlier - the ones supported my view that capital punishment is in fact not a deterrent in the US - but I will add further proof. That proof can be found in Canada, a nation that abolished the death penalty 1976 to the horror of many who felt that murder rates would only rise as a result. Spoiler: They didn't. Canada's murder rate actually dropped the following year, and for the next twenty would continue to fluctuate, never once reaching above the figure on the year of abolition, however (2.8 per 1000). In 2006 - latest figures I could find - the homicide rate was only 1.9 per 1000, that's a rather significant drop. Why? Well, it's important to remember motives behind crimes tend to be one of the following three: compulsion, passion and profit. The last - profit - tends to be the only one where rational thought it added to the equation and, even then, few murderers ever anticipate ever being apprehended and, as such, the death penalty is not as much a deterrent that many individuals seem to believe it is.Leading criminologists agree, too - though you'll have to clink into the PDF on the page linked to read what exactly they have to say on the matter.

I'm going to avoid the shady morality - on the states part, mostly - surrounding the issue and the perceived hypocrisy in murdering murderers in the hope of deterring more because I'm sure I've no chance of convincing you that way. I'll similarly fly over the economic arguments - I'll add though that it tends to cost a lot more. - because I personally don't believe that lack of funding should get in the way of delivering justice, though the figures are interesting nonetheless.

It's the infinitude of death and it's irreversiblity irregardless of later findings that I'll concentrate on last instead. Every judges verdict of death is always sorrounded by some degree of uncertainty no matter how clear cut the case may seem. You can never be sure that the convicted is 100% guilty - confessions aside - and in the event of a mistake such mistakes can be fatal - literally. The concept of guilt itself only means that there is a convincing level of evidence without a reasonable degree of doubt; it's not - and never has been - a measure of certainty. Then take 'doubt', a legal term that has always held some degree of ambiguity and subjectivity about it, and one not made any easier to judge by 'reasonable' proceeding it.

And getting it wrong does occur, we've been realising it more and more over the years since the introduction of DNA analysis. Exoneration rates aren't exactly low at an average of 3.1 a year between 1973 and 1999 and 5 a year between 2000 and 2011. As of December 2012 there's been 142 exonerations - that's 142 people; real human beings that could've almost died on account of your institutionalized barbarism. These are only the almosts, however, posthumous pardons still happen and people do die due to these tragic miscarriages of justice occurring under the penal system that you support - if that's not enough to denounce it I don't know what is.

Ok you raise some good points but i find a few faults.
1. Since when were there murderers in Canada? Ive never heard of none so i may be ignorant of it.
2. Why even keep people like Manson alive? He shows no remorse and i think must pay more for the crimes he'd done.
3. Like i said above, why let a pedophile or a cannibal or any other low life live when they've taken the life of a mother, father, brother, sister, or anyone else.

Im not saying everything warrants the death penalty, but why keep serial killers, child molesters, rapists, and others of heinous crimes alive? Drug dealers should get it too because they ruin other people lives for money.

[Vlerchan]

If they havent committed an offense then i think a form of rehab would work. But if they have, why use taxpayer money to keep scum like that alive?
Because it costs less money than setting up trial after trial and hearing after hearing in order to be reasonably certain - I can't stress reasonably here enough - that they killed someone and proceed to execute them? Because even when you are reasonably certain you're still not - and can never be - completely certain and mistakes do happen? Because murder is always wrong regardless of who the victim happens to be? Because punishment should never be focused around revenge and spite, ever? Because it's an outdated and barbaric method of delivering justice and much more humane and pragmatic solutions exist? Because all-in-all it is neither necessary, moral, economical, fair, nor a reasonable deterrent to future crime? I could go on, really.

If the death penalty is a no-go then i say give them some seeds and have them make a garden and live off the land for life. Nothing more than seeds. If they just want to kill each other, let them, its their nature and nothing can change that.
I read a book in which they did that. Unfortunately, however, unlike said book, we haven't managed to master interstellar colonisation and simply don't have the room to allow criminals their own little anarchic society.

Since when were there murderers in Canada?
I'd assume always seeing as I've found no year where the figures show a murder rate of 0 per 1000. I have found years directly proceeding the abolition of capital punishment where murder rates have steadily dropped, however.

2. Why even keep people like Manson alive? He shows no remorse and i think must pay more for the crimes he'd done.
Mason is quite clearly mentally ill. He shows no remorse for his crimes because he is incapable of such. Capital Punishment also affects more than solely Charles Manson which is why I'm reluctant to get bogged down in his whole case. I will add however that I don't believe revenge or retribution or spite - the reasons I'm sure you support him 'paying more' - should ever feature in the justice systems of a civilised nation, among many other reasons I've already outlined.

[3.] I'm not saying everything warrants the death penalty, but why keep serial killers, child molesters, rapists, and others of heinous crimes alive?
Because you can never be completely certain they're guilty amongst a host of other reasons.

[Human]

Well not every country has the capital punishment.
I'm glad the UK doesn't, I don't believe in an eye for an eye and I think the criminal who gets executed also has a family who are hurt by the death

[EddietheZombie]

Because it costs less money than setting up trial after trial and hearing after hearing in order to be reasonably certain - I can't stress reasonably here enough - that they killed someone and proceed to execute them? Because even when you are reasonably certain you're still not - and can never be - completely certain and mistakes do happen? Because murder is always wrong regardless of who the victim happens to be? Because punishment should never be focused around revenge and spite, ever? Because it's an outdated and barbaric method of delivering justice and much more humane and pragmatic solutions exist? Because all-in-all it is neither necessary, moral, economical, fair, nor a reasonable deterrent to future crime? I could go on, really.

Im not talking about ones that people think arnt guilty, im talking about the ones that beyond a shadow of a doubt are guilty. Like Manson, Al Capone, ect. People that confess and are found guilty beyond argument.
I read a book in which they did that. Unfortunately, however, unlike said book, we haven't managed to master interstellar colonisation and simply don't have the room to allow criminals their own little anarchic society.

Give them the deserts or a small island(when the debt as been settled) and let them stay there. They try to leave the island, there will be traps and mines in the water.
I'd assume always seeing as I've found no year where the figures show a murder rate of 0 per 1000. I have found years directly proceeding the abolition of capital punishment where murder rates have steadily dropped, however.
I said that because you never hear of anyone in or from Canada that have done crimes even remotely similar to Bundy or Manson.
Mason is quite clearly mentally ill. He shows no remorse for his crimes because he is incapable of such. Capital Punishment also affects more than solely Charles Manson which is why I'm reluctant to get bogged down in his whole case. I will add however that I don't believe revenge or retribution or spite - the reasons I'm sure you support him 'paying more' - should ever feature in the justice systems of a civilised nation, among many other reasons I've already outlined.
Its both about revenge and that i dont want to pay taxes to let that scum live. Just execute him and be done with it. I have a saying i always say and thats "One rope can solve a lot of problems". I mainly say it for pedophiles and anyone else that is in the same box as them. Sure call me 'Barbaric' but what they did are unforgivable crimes that cannot be undone and have made many people suffer. So why should we even keep scum like that alive? Why should we pay money for their survival? Thats why i say make them grow food for either themselves to live, or to be purchased by us(People to inspect it of course) and send the money they make to the family of the deceased loved one they murdered. Like i said if they killed the working person of the family, how are they going to pay the bills, eat, ect? That money could go to that. And another thing that i dont like about "Life Sentences", is that 1. you have to pay for them till they die, Example if they commit the crime at 20 years old and they live to 80 thats alot of money, and 2. is because there is always a chance the can get out. If they give a rapist, pedophile, or anyone else 25 to life that means that you serve 15 years and can get off on good behavior or something else. I think that people should have done to them what they did to the person they killed. If they shot them, then shoot the murderer. If they are a cannibal and ate them, then feed them to some lions or pigs. If they're a pedophile then cut there testicles off without pain meds. Thats how i see it. Those are some of the most heinous crimes imaginable and they deserve what they get. If someone close to you was hurt or killed by someone like i mentioned, would you want them dead? Would you think to yourself "I hope the get life in prison"? I know what i would think. I'd think "Give that bastard/bitch the electric chair and let them fry". No one in their right mine wants the murderer of someone they know to live.
Because you can never be completely certain they're guilty amongst a host of other reasons.
If the confess or are like Ed Gein(they found lampshades among other things made of human skin) or are found in the act then they are guilty. Drug dealers need to be on death row because they ruin alot of peoples lives.
Well not every country has the capital punishment.
I'm glad the UK doesn't, I don't believe in an eye for an eye and I think the criminal who gets executed also has a family who are hurt by the death
What about the guys that chopped up that soldier in the street with cleavers? Are they in jail? Do you think they deserve death? And why not? What about the pedophiles? Pedophiles get only 3 years here, maybe less there. Getting caught with pot is 10 years sometimes. Is that fair? I dont think pot dealers are that bad compared to cocaine or meth dealers. The criminal had done a heinous crime and the family of the person they murdered are hurt, and the family of the criminal arnt because he got imprisonment. Seems unfair to me, does it to you?

[Vlerchan]

Im not talking about ones that people think arnt guilty, im talking about the ones that beyond a shadow of a doubt are guilty. Like Manson, Al Capone, ect. People that confess and are found guilty beyond argument.
In the world of law their is only guilty and non-guilty. There is no 'very-guilty' or 'moderately-guilty' or 'mildly-guilty' or 'sorta-guilty'. And as such it is impossible to differentiate between individuals like Manson and Carlos DeLuna. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Tocayos_Carlos) If an individual is convicted guilty then they are presumed by the law to be as guilty as any other convicted - capital punishment affects everyone equally.

People that confess usually tend to confess on a basis that has them avoid the death penalty.

Its both about revenge and that i dont want to pay taxes to let that scum live.
1. A legal system should never be based around revenge, in my opinion. It's why I commonly equate capital punishment to legalised murder because, that simply, is what it is. I understand the crimes do deeply affect families but I find it wrong that the state would provide to their need to see any individual physically suffer, and strange that said individuals suffering would bring them any more solace than simply locking them up.
2. It's costing less of your taxes to keep them alive than have the state murder them. Though, I'm assuming it's not the money but rather the morality behind it, in that case I can't help you.

I think that people should have done to them what they did to the person they killed. If they shot them, then shoot the murderer. If they are a cannibal and ate them, then feed them to some lions or pigs. If they're a pedophile then cut there testicles off without pain meds.
Your suggestions are the very definition of barbarity - they sicken me, really; as abhorrent as the crimes committed by some criminals are, it is equally abhorrent to enact forms of justice that would involve castrating criminals and feeding their bodies to wild animals; these crude extractions of revenge, inflicted to cause only physical suffering on the convicted, serve only to equate the mentality of the justice system with that of the criminal in question making us no worse or no better than the individual in which we are inflicting these inhumanities on. Is that really a system of justice that you would wish to live under - one in which would use the methods - or similar methods - to that of the murderer, those of which we find so heinous and reprehensible, and decide it fair based on the nature of the crimes in which they are condemning the individual on?

The criminal had done a heinous crime and the family of the person they murdered are hurt, and the family of the criminal arnt because he got imprisonment. Seems unfair to me, does it to you?
You're not seriously inferring that we should aim to hurt the wholly innocent families of murderers? I can only hope I'm reading you wrong.

And with that I will bow out. I've said what I wanted to say, and my continuation is rather pointless seeing as how I'm not open to change on my opinion. You may of course counter my argument in whatever way you deem fit, but it is unlikely I'll respond as most of your issues with my argument are completely subjective, personal opinions - same as mine - regarding the morality surrounding the issue and ones I which I am unlikely to convince you differently of. I find it is easier - and would prefer - to simply disagree rather and move on than get sucked into the circularity of moral debates - It's why you'll only rarely see me posting outside clear-cut economics debates.

[EddietheZombie]

In the world of law their is only guilty and non-guilty. There is no 'very-guilty' or 'moderately-guilty' or 'mildly-guilty' or 'sorta-guilty'. And as such it is impossible to differentiate between individuals like Manson and Carlos DeLuna. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Tocayos_Carlos) If an individual is convicted guilty then they are presumed by the law to be as guilty as any other convicted - capital punishment affects everyone equally.

People that confess usually tend to confess on a basis that has them avoid the death penalty.


1. A legal system should never be based around revenge, in my opinion. It's why I commonly equate capital punishment to legalised murder because, that simply, is what it is. I understand the crimes do deeply affect families but I find it wrong that the state would provide to their need to see any individual physically suffer, and strange that said individuals suffering would bring them any more solace than simply locking them up.
2. It's costing less of your taxes to keep them alive than have the state murder them. Though, I'm assuming it's not the money but rather the morality behind it, in that case I can't help you.


Your suggestions are the very definition of barbarity - they sicken me, really; as abhorrent as the crimes committed by some criminals are, it is equally abhorrent to enact forms of justice that would involve castrating criminals and feeding their bodies to wild animals; these crude extractions of revenge, inflicted to cause only physical suffering on the convicted, serve only to equate the mentality of the justice system with that of the criminal in question making us no worse or no better than the individual in which we are inflicting these inhumanities on. Is that really a system of justice that you would wish to live under - one in which would use the methods - or similar methods - to that of the murderer, those of which we find so heinous and reprehensible, and decide it fair based on the nature of the crimes in which they are condemning the individual on?


You're not seriously inferring that we should aim to hurt the wholly innocent families of murderers? I can only hope I'm reading you wrong.

And with that I will bow out. I've said what I wanted to say, and my continuation is rather pointless seeing as how I'm not open to change on my opinion. You may of course counter my argument in whatever way you deem fit, but it is unlikely I'll respond as most of your issues with my argument are completely subjective, personal opinions - same as mine - regarding the morality surrounding the issue and ones I which I am unlikely to convince you differently of. I find it is easier - and would prefer - to simply disagree rather and move on than get sucked into the circularity of moral debates - It's why you'll only rarely see me posting outside clear-cut economics debates.

Ok then with this quote, i too will bow out. But what im trying to explain is that should the murderer, like Manson, be executed in a way that makes them feel what the person they killed felt. A taste of there own medicine. And if someone hurt someone in your family, would you think "I want him to get life". I know what i would think. Id think "Give that F*** the electric chair and let them fry". And i didnt say that the family of the murderer to suffer, i said why should the family of the deceased grieve, while the family of the murderer celebrate that he only got prison time. Seems a bit one sided to me. I stopped caring what "people" felt along time ago. If someone finds something or a punishment "Heinous" or "Disturbing" i would say "Well that sick fuck shouldnt have raped/killed/cooked and ate that person." At the very least i say we bring back hanging. "One rope can solve alot of problems" Thats my saying. People think its bad, but its relatively painless compared to what i think should be done with pedophiles and other freaks.

Anyway im tired, i could type more but im tired. Goodnight and with that i bow out. No need to reply.