Justice

Post Reply New Topic

I think that the death penalty is a decent solution if it is the most economically efficient. The most economically efficient solution is the one that is the best because by saving money on somethings then we can improve other systems. If rehabilitation is the most efficient solution then it should be done. If death is the most efficient then that is the proper path. I don't want good money that can be used to educate the youth, that can be used to heal law-abiding citizens, that can be used to promote economic growth, that can be used to prevent these problems simply sent as a check to be used to support the life of a non-contributing human being. If having the family use their money to support the dude's life was practical then I might support it, however I am uncertain about the practicality of having families support their criminal relatives due to the poor economic conditions that usually cause these crimes.

I'm against the death penalty, but only because its too expensive and the current popular method (lethal injection) is too merciful. I think part of the glory of capital punishment was the chance for the victim's families to see criminals die in such a way that the fear of death was written all over their face just like it was with their victim(s). With lethal injection, they just kind of fall asleep. And that's that.

There is no justice. There is the solution that does the most benefit for society then there are solutions that don't. Justice is an abstract concept depends soley on perception. If it weren't then differing opinions on the matter could not exist. If there is a global concept of justice then it is beyond human perception. In the end justice is a concept that we use to "justify" our own actions and is interpreted in the manner that benefits us the most at the moment.

Would you support public execution? Maybe a guillotine or axeman in front of a camera? This might cause problems of desensitization towards violence but would also provide a better reminder not to commit crimes and could pay for itself or even make money although making money could cause the death penalty to become too popular.

Practically speaking i think that all law can be figured out by asking the question - can the person interact lawfully in the society? If you reasonably decide they cannot interact in society then remove their civil rights. And i think the most economically feisible method of dealing with those deemed unsuitable to interact in society should be made into slaves for personal, commercial, and military use. And it is important that they are infact unable to reliably interact lawfully in society. If they are rehabilitatable, then do that.

I understand that this would be hard to enforce, make fair, and keep intact but im sure using the right combination of incentives that it would hold for several decades before the system needed an overhaul.

Yeah, like the electric chair, hanging, firing squad, beheading, burning at the stake, crucifixion, bricking someone in, feeding them to animals, deep sixing, and the Arabs used to have this one where they tied someone's arms and legs to four stakes out in the middle of the desert and left them there. IMO, gassing someone is weak unless you use something like mustard gas, nerve gas, or Zyclon B.

Personally I'd like to see experiments with vaccum chambers and explosive decompression. Or maybe just have them fight as gladiators in an arena and televise it on Pay Per View to recover the costs of the execution and appeals.

Oooh, medical testing!! Death row people would be perfect for testing drugs and things of that nature. If they die it doesn't matter and we can do the experiments that would otherwise be seen as ethically wrong.

Good idea. Such a thing has been done before- the early smallpox innoculations were tested on criminals and orphans before they were given to everyone else. And for the sake of science, sometimes drugs and treatments need to be tested on humans, NOT just on animals.

The Chinese government has had some success with that.

I'm in favor of an eye for an eye kind of execution style, myself. That guy who raped the girl for 3 days and buried her alive? I'd have stuck him in the cell with Bubba and a virility drug for 3 days, and then hogtied him and buried him in durt.

Or, the BTK Killer? I'd have had people tie him up, whip and cut him and strangle him nearly to death, but let him go at the last minute. Then throw him in his cell again. I wouldn't announce when it was going to happen, so he'd have to live in fear of the next time it did. After it happened once for each time he committed a murder, I'd have the job finished and have him strangled to death. I'd stretch this out over a period of several years.

I would have just had OJ knifed to death.

The only problem with that kind of punishment is that it doesn't really account for people like Tookie, who technically killed his victims in a painless way. Maybe some kind of beating involving metal pipes? And yes, Tookie deserved to die - having your name signed to a book that was co-written by a ghost author and that sold a whopping 300 copies doesn't count as repentence... for Gods sake, he wouldn't even admit that he killed the people in the first place.

For every scumbag who deserves to be killed in the most inhumane way possible, there's an seemingly infinite number of far-leftists (usually America hates, although not always) who are willing to deify and marty them.

You do make a good point, my fear about that is that the extremely psychotic murderers would kill using extremely psychotic methods. Having executioners do the same might not be very good for their psyches and lead to psychological problems. The changes might also be more expensive (starve one guy, beat another with a rod, burn one, etc) having a more standard way of dying would be cheaper. Seriously though, the irredeemable human beings need to be removed in the most efficient/effective manner in my opinion. I don't want to glorify murderers or even recognize these betrayers to our society as human. We must act in the manner that helps the most people.

There should be no death penalty I realy belive there is too much room for errror Having many appreals and such make it happen years after the offence is weird ie on death row 10 years. I think to most people true life sentances is worse. I realy dont think its a real deturant to crime their crimials just like the gun laws they dont care if there breaking the law by carrying one the dont think they'll be caught

Or, here's a novel thought... maybe governments could work on preventing crime by actually putting MONEY into school systems which aren't in richy rich suburbs and setting up programs to help those families raise their children so that crime isn't quite so appealing an option.

We could take all that money that's wasted on elections and promoting lazy, devious candidates and actually do something worthwhile with it!

Or maybe I'm just crazy and trying to rock the boat. Prevention... hehe. What a silly and time-consuming idea...

Prevention is a good idea. Money should be used to improve education and perhaps even attack negative cultural influences that lead to crime. That is why we must go for the cheapest solution to deal with our criminals. The money that we save on this can go to preventing crime. The best solution is the solution that helps out society the best in the long run.

The idea of taking away election money for the cause of prevention is rather short-sighted and idealistic. The corrupt politicians will always exist and the purpose of the money is to allow people to support the candidates that they favor and to pay for the expenses of a massive campaign. In its own way it is a necessary expense and it allows groups willing to sacrifice more to have more political control which could be good or bad depending on the aims of that group. It is private money that cannot be taken away by the government anymore than the money in your bank could be taken by the government. However, I wouldn't be surprised if you were joking about this.

I don't really believe much in rehabilitation for murderer and rapists. For every Birdman of Alcatraz, there's loads of convicted murderers and child rapists who get out of jail on good behavior and immediately start killing and raping again.

Most - not all, but most - first degree murder is committed by people who aren't fit to be called human. Sometimes it's done by someone who thinks it's the lesser of two evils, like the man who killed his wife because she was dying painfully of cancer yet the gov't wouldn't let her be euthanized, or the man who killed his sister's husband for beating her since the police weren't doing anything about it. But with few exceptions, it's a crime committed by (forgive the language) human pieces of s**t, who would still be human pieces of s**t no matter how much rehab they went through.

And even if rehab worked on one, would it be worth the additional victims the ones it didn't work on racked up upon release?

Rape, I have even less sympathy for. As I see it, you rape someone, you get shot, with the victim having the option of being the one to pull the trigger on the gun herself.

I think that there is no such thing a Justice in this world that We Live in today.