Eye for an Eye

Merika · 11-11-2004, 01:08 PM

We've had several mini discussions which went into the thought that an 'eye for an eye' can be on way to curb crime.

What are your feelings on this and how far could the justice system actually carry it?

Duke · 11-11-2004, 01:16 PM

I am the hugest supporter of this in the world I believe. If I ever ran for office, this would be my platform.

I think eye for an eye justice is vital in reducing our crime rate and punishing those who deserve it properly. As far as I'm concerned, a criminal has no rights one incarcerated and his/her fate should be decided by the victim or the victims family. The severity should also be controlled by the victim and their family.

I think this means a lot of dead criminals which is fine by me. That way maybe we don't have so much of our tax dollars go to locking these tards up and keeping them alive once inside. Less guards, less prison food, less shrinks, less prisons, less tax, less crime. I just don't see a downside.

Merika · 11-12-2004, 09:46 AM

I wanted to check out if Capitol Punishment (which I happen to agree with) was an actual deterrent to the crime rate of murder. Now this site:
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/arti...ATES%20WITHOUT

indicates that it doesn't. It also said that when Canada abolished Capitol Punishment their crime rate went down.

Anyone can made any statistic work for them to prove a point....but I don't agree with this article at all.

Personally, I would rather be executed than spend a life in prison...so maybe that's a factor. But GOOD GRIEF it takes $60,000 USD to keep a man on death row. That's A LOT of money!

Duke · 11-12-2004, 08:32 PM

I'm not sure how these stats work when a crime goes unsolved or if the criminal is from a different state.

I also don't agree with our death penalty methods, lethal injection is also given to animals to prevent cruelty isn't it? To satisfy me, death should be a bit horrific for the criminal. Shot in several places before death, hanging, removal of body parts without anesthetic, etc. In other words, the criminal needs to suffer before the end and I don't care how the suffering is done, so long as it is done. Hell, lock them up in a room full of bees in a black suit. Thats cruel and likely painful as hell.

dogula · 11-13-2004, 10:18 PM

Capital punishment does not serve as a deterrent to crime. Normally when people commit crime they are doing so under the assumption they will not get caught and will not get punished at all, or they do the crime with out thinking it through and not thinking of the potential punishment. Then there is the issue of wrongfully accusing and convicting criminals (I think there was a book released recently by the first man exonerated by DNA evidence, after nine years of being on death row). I know there is plenty off cases where there is a vicious attack and a community is outraged and the police make a hasty arrest and will ignore evidence that would suggest that their suspect did not do the crime and prosecute anyway. In these sort of cases an accused person might have their life ruined just by the association with the crime but if they are in fact wrongfully convicted we are taking their most basic right away in error.

Then there is of course the moral issue with this, we live in a civil society that says that killing is wrong, yet we as a society do it to punish. It has always seemed a tad hipocritical to me.

And as Merika posted above it actually costs more money to execute a person than it does to keep them in prison for the rest of their life.

Anyway, I do think that the death penalty is morally repugnant and we are exposing ourselves (as a society) to wrongfully executing people that are not guilty of any crime.

And duke, what you describe sounds strangely medieval.

Duke · 11-13-2004, 10:24 PM

You're right, it does sound medieval, but it also sounds good to me.

I can't see how it costs more to kill a criminal than it does to imprison one. In this day and age, isn't DNA evidence the sincher in criminal prosecution cases? Maybe there were some bugs earlier on but I think the systems pretty foolproof now (I could be wrong).

For me, putting a criminal to death does not mean housing them for extended periods of time. Simple, found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, die. No book deals, no made for TV specials, no good food, death.

I care not about the criminals rights (they shouldn't have them) I care much more about the victim and the victims families. There lives are altered forever and it's unfair which is why their called victims.

dogula · 11-13-2004, 10:42 PM

http://www.mindspring.com/~phporter/econ.html

Mostly it is trial costs that bump the total price up.

And as far as keeping them in for an extended period of time, our legal system does allow a person who was convicted of a crime to appeal their conviction (because of evidence mishandling, bad police work, bad trial). The whole process can take years. If a person were to not contest the sentence they probably would be executed within a year.

And our judicial system is not about getting retribution for the victim or their familiy. It is about punishing a criminal for their crime against society.

And again, I don't see how we collectively are any better than the criminal if we murder him right back.

Duke · 11-13-2004, 10:50 PM

I don't consider it murder to execute a murderer; I consider it justice and fair. I don't believe a murderer should have any rights except from high high he wants the temperature when we cremate him.

I can tell you, somebody kills someone close to me and they can kiss their ass goodbye if I ever get a hold of them. If I am put to death for this then it will be welcome because I will have already died inside.

By the way, thatÃƒÂ¢Ã¢Â‚Â¬Ã¢Â„Â¢s the nice thing about points of view, they can vary as far apart as your and mine does and neither of us is right or wrong for having them.

calizza · 11-13-2004, 11:53 PM

I say we make the death penalty to complicated.
a 9mm to the cranium is all it should take.

btw I am all for it. I do not feel morally hypocritical for it either. If they take a life it should be so in trade for their own life. Why let them take it and not give anything for trade?

Duke · 11-14-2004, 12:23 AM

agreed.

lets run for office cal.

Merika · 11-14-2004, 02:52 AM

This will sound politically incorrect and OH SO RIGHT WING.....but my feeling is this: If we are a society willing to snuff out an innocent babies life due to it coming at an 'inconvenient time' in our life.......we should also be able to snuff out the prisoners on death who are equally as inconvenient.

If a person can kill someone for recreation....I'm thinking I'm doing them a favor to put them to death....because they are messed up.

I DO realize I am very judgemental in my thinking....and may be wrong....until this point though.....I can't see the wrong in disrespecting a person who disrespected someone else's life.

Duke · 11-14-2004, 04:48 AM

I don't think it sounds bad at all in fact.

OwnzYa · 11-14-2004, 09:49 AM

Death penalty showed over the last past decades no real decrease of crime.
No offense, but if I read the above things, it almost sounds like I'm in Saudi Arabia or some other islamic state where they judge by beheadings and stonings.
Human rights are counting for every human on this planet and therefor human cannot take other humans rights away, whatever he did.

Duke · 11-14-2004, 11:11 AM

No offense taken buds.

The nice thing about a forum like this is that everyone has an opinion and their all welcome to it. I'm in awe of how nobody takes anything personally, nothing gets heated, and nobodies out of hand. You guys all rule!