Optophobia
Member
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 696
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2005
Why bshoc?
-
Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this! Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Do You Support the Death Penalty? (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter townie
- Start date
I'm completely against the death penalty, although not out of pity or anything.
You see, ideally I like to imagine a person as an economic unit plus a bundle of human emotions and rights... and whatever. Now, I think a criminal forfeits aspects of themselves through socially 'inconvenient' behaviour, whereby genocide is the most 'inconvenient' and thus the greatest forfeit. (Yes, I realise some people will say I'm being too cold. But I'm trying to 'in-humanise' everything in this situation so that people don't later try and justify execution by giving some import to a victim's family's rampant anger and desire for retribution.)
So a criminal forfeits pretty much everything except their status as an economic unit (an entity that can generate some value through some form of labour). So when given the choice between the death penalty and a lifetime of slave labour, why the hell would you choose the former?
Of course you might try and argue which one is more 'humane' or some crap (personally I think the death penalty is the ultimate inhumanity even in relation to torture... but let's not go there today), or you might even consider some other odd scenarios (person costs more to keep alive then to kill). I could continue my argument, but I have a tendency to bore people.
So essentially, in my opinion, the death penalty is unnecessarily final, leaves room for regret (say if the person ends up innocent), and in the worst cases (such as genocidal dictators), it's just plain stupid when compared with more innovative punishments.
You see, ideally I like to imagine a person as an economic unit plus a bundle of human emotions and rights... and whatever. Now, I think a criminal forfeits aspects of themselves through socially 'inconvenient' behaviour, whereby genocide is the most 'inconvenient' and thus the greatest forfeit. (Yes, I realise some people will say I'm being too cold. But I'm trying to 'in-humanise' everything in this situation so that people don't later try and justify execution by giving some import to a victim's family's rampant anger and desire for retribution.)
So a criminal forfeits pretty much everything except their status as an economic unit (an entity that can generate some value through some form of labour). So when given the choice between the death penalty and a lifetime of slave labour, why the hell would you choose the former?
Of course you might try and argue which one is more 'humane' or some crap (personally I think the death penalty is the ultimate inhumanity even in relation to torture... but let's not go there today), or you might even consider some other odd scenarios (person costs more to keep alive then to kill). I could continue my argument, but I have a tendency to bore people.
So essentially, in my opinion, the death penalty is unnecessarily final, leaves room for regret (say if the person ends up innocent), and in the worst cases (such as genocidal dictators), it's just plain stupid when compared with more innovative punishments.
Morally I am against the death penalty. To take someone’s life is wrong and certainly undesirable when alternatives such as imprisonments of "never to be released" exist. Obviously this is preferable in almost every circumstance, morally.
However in countries where law and order are real problems, in many cases, harsher penalties are a necessity in order to attempt to preserve the peace.
In Australia most person out of custom will obey the law, it is the norm. It must be recognized that in some places this is not the case. Crime in some places is fairly common.
Make no mistake that in many countries with the death penalty, it does not exist because it is considered morally right or desirable but because they require the harshest penalties order to provide a deterrent. Many places cannot afford a "never to be released" verdict, economically it is not an option. As a result it is unfair to criticize them as being morally bankrupt. They respond with what they see as being a necessary measure against criminals driven by social circumstances in some cases that can make crime a habitual way of life.
However, for a western developed state like the US there is no reason for the sentence to exist. It can be superceded by a more ethical "never to be released" sentence that can have the same ability to act as an equivalent deterrent to the death penalty.
Originally corporal and capital punishment existed not because people thought it humane, but because few other options were practical. Just in some places they have failed to ease it out because it has become accepted as the social norm.
Personally I am in favor of heavy sentencing for Drug traffickers, serial killers and child abusers.
I am of the belief that strict sentencing can act as a strong deterrent, despite what some surveys might say. I mean come on, what do you think would happen if the gov. handed out life sentencing for possession of drugs. Odviously less people would consider it acceptable and a strong social stigma would be attached. Result drug use would plummet when everyone knows it to be really wrong. If not physically damaging, certainly damaging if you are caught with it.
However in countries where law and order are real problems, in many cases, harsher penalties are a necessity in order to attempt to preserve the peace.
In Australia most person out of custom will obey the law, it is the norm. It must be recognized that in some places this is not the case. Crime in some places is fairly common.
Make no mistake that in many countries with the death penalty, it does not exist because it is considered morally right or desirable but because they require the harshest penalties order to provide a deterrent. Many places cannot afford a "never to be released" verdict, economically it is not an option. As a result it is unfair to criticize them as being morally bankrupt. They respond with what they see as being a necessary measure against criminals driven by social circumstances in some cases that can make crime a habitual way of life.
However, for a western developed state like the US there is no reason for the sentence to exist. It can be superceded by a more ethical "never to be released" sentence that can have the same ability to act as an equivalent deterrent to the death penalty.
Originally corporal and capital punishment existed not because people thought it humane, but because few other options were practical. Just in some places they have failed to ease it out because it has become accepted as the social norm.
Personally I am in favor of heavy sentencing for Drug traffickers, serial killers and child abusers.
I am of the belief that strict sentencing can act as a strong deterrent, despite what some surveys might say. I mean come on, what do you think would happen if the gov. handed out life sentencing for possession of drugs. Odviously less people would consider it acceptable and a strong social stigma would be attached. Result drug use would plummet when everyone knows it to be really wrong. If not physically damaging, certainly damaging if you are caught with it.
Last edited:
zoesnotannoying
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 39
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- N/A
No, because it is impossible to make clear judgements on who is worthy of life or death. There are too many grey areas and there is far too much room for error.
Yes, there are certain people whom the world could do without, but it's all or nothing and I'd prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to matters as senstive and serious as death.
Yes, there are certain people whom the world could do without, but it's all or nothing and I'd prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to matters as senstive and serious as death.
I'm strongly against, the main reason being the suffering of the murderer's family if a he/she is killed.
however, the following merits consideration: If double parking was a capital offence many lives would be saved each year
however, the following merits consideration: If double parking was a capital offence many lives would be saved each year
ur_inner_child
.%$^!@&^#(*!?.%$^?!.
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2004
- Messages
- 6,084
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2004
Oh okay. So which do you prefer?
HotShot
-_-
Public Hanging.
i think cowface is stupidface. why u say apply death ?? do u know like life??
crime always here. only you afraid. stupid fear. in china, we afraid of no things. maybe chinese speak whitemale. but other is okay. jap is maybe good, but i no say i like.
crime always here. only you afraid. stupid fear. in china, we afraid of no things. maybe chinese speak whitemale. but other is okay. jap is maybe good, but i no say i like.
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
only in the most extreme circumstances. you know, war criminals that plead guilty, with absolutely no chance that they're innocent. that's the only scenario where i'd support it. of course, if i were in a position of prominence, i'd decry the practise entirely in an effort to abolish it worldwide.
HotShot
-_-
Sometimes doing something bad - could be a good thing?cowface said:
HotShot
-_-
IS Ronald your boyfriend? Screw him. He deserved all of it.pseudonym said:
Public Hanging.
Studies have been done in the US that shows the states which do have the death penalty DO NOT have a lower rate of murder/assaults etc etc than states which dont have the death penalty. Thus any argument supporting the death penalty because it makes ppl less likely to harm others is simply wrong.
Lucid Scintilla
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2006
- Messages
- 433
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
I didn't read the whole thread, and, frankly, I don't care whether you think that even notorious (American-backed, might I add) dictators go nutso on their own brothers (and sisters), even if you're prepared to argue the point. [Seriously, I don't mean any disrespect; I've read the first page of 50 posts.]
I shall always have something in response, and so, yadda-yadda-yadda.
The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is the execution of a convicted prisoner authorized by the state as punitive measures for capital offences.
The argument breaks down to this, or something that resembles this, the death penalty is supposed to deter murderers (which I believe is just utter bullspit, because, with or without it, in the grand scheme of things, "shit happens"); and it is retribution to those who wrong (no, I don't believe this is a fair reason to take another human being's life - leave this to gangs, mobsters, and such people, but not the freaking system/State).
Also, having accidentally executed a 'prisoner', one cannot simply undo such an act against human rights and justice; thus, the risk of accidental execution of innocents precludes the use of this radical method to deal with crims (but America doesn't care, nor does China, or any 'revolutionary' country for that matter, like Cuba).
Also, what the hell is cruel and unusual punishment? I mean, take the recent examples of well-known executions, those of Saddam Hussein and his fellows - what the hell is choking the crap out of these people going to do; what is decapitating Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti going to achieve?
This is not justice; it is the State committing a crime that one could, and should, liken to those committed by these unspeakable people.
That said, I did not, do not, and shall not* support the death penalty
*That's how I'd like to see myself in the future, I suppose.
I shall always have something in response, and so, yadda-yadda-yadda.
The death penalty, also known as capital punishment, is the execution of a convicted prisoner authorized by the state as punitive measures for capital offences.
The argument breaks down to this, or something that resembles this, the death penalty is supposed to deter murderers (which I believe is just utter bullspit, because, with or without it, in the grand scheme of things, "shit happens"); and it is retribution to those who wrong (no, I don't believe this is a fair reason to take another human being's life - leave this to gangs, mobsters, and such people, but not the freaking system/State).
Also, having accidentally executed a 'prisoner', one cannot simply undo such an act against human rights and justice; thus, the risk of accidental execution of innocents precludes the use of this radical method to deal with crims (but America doesn't care, nor does China, or any 'revolutionary' country for that matter, like Cuba).
Also, what the hell is cruel and unusual punishment? I mean, take the recent examples of well-known executions, those of Saddam Hussein and his fellows - what the hell is choking the crap out of these people going to do; what is decapitating Barzan Ibrahim al-Tikriti going to achieve?
This is not justice; it is the State committing a crime that one could, and should, liken to those committed by these unspeakable people.
That said, I did not, do not, and shall not* support the death penalty
*That's how I'd like to see myself in the future, I suppose.