UPSB v3
Serious Discussion / Capital punishment
-
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 00:39:08
So prisoners:
Do they get it too good?
Should murderers go to prison or should they be killed?
How many years should people get for minor offences?
Are there benefits in letting people go for minor offences with the threat of very harsh punishment upon repeating the offence?
Should we allow public humiliation as a punishment?
Discuss. -
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 01:01:57
Replying to the question:
Should murderers go to prison or should they be killed?
I think they should go to prison. Would you rather spend the rest of your life in prison, or die? I know I'd rather just die. I think that going to prison is a harsher punishment than being killed because you have nothing to look forward to. There's nothing left for you, for the rest of your life and you can't do anything about it, you can't do anything. It's almost like you don't have a say or not about your own life. Just thinking about having to live like that...I would rather be killed. -
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 02:01:10
They should get physically tortured. See "torture" thread.
They should get what they deserved, times 2. Thats it.
- Provide reasoning.
~ Tialys
K..because most criminals are anything but asian. LOL JK thats not a reason.
Because...I hate criminals. -
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 04:48:10
Someone renamed the thread to capital punishment, but I was thinking more about punishment of criminals in general - How they should be punished, what is most effective, and what is going too far and so forth.
For instance, in prison here, one has access to television and some games as well as getting a certain amount of time outside too. I think that is making prison really too easy for criminals and that prison should be made harder.
I think that when someone has committed a murder, it should be taken on a case by case basis. For instance, if someone seems likely to commit murder again, they should be locked up for the rest of their life. If someone were to commit multiple murders, they should recieve the death penalty. If someone murdered in a crime of passion and is unlikely to re-offend, the punishment should be less harsh, perhaps a ten year strech.
I don't think putting people in prison for minor offences works and that public humiliation is probably a better tactic to prevent re-offending. For instance, a thief who has stolen goods from a shop a few times might get a few months in prison, what might work better is if they were forced to wear a bright yellow jacket, with the words 'theif' printed on in black letters, in their town centre and be forced to stand there for every Saturday for a month from morning until dusk doing a very boring task. -
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 04:51:45QUOTE (Mats @ Jun 26 2008, 08:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Should we allow public humiliation as a punishment?
You should be more precise on what you mean by public humiliation.
I picture a trapped man in the middle of a castle with tomatoes being thrown at him
-
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 04:54:29QUOTE (toast @ Jun 27 2008, 05:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>You should be more precise on what you mean by public humiliation.
I picture a trapped man in the middle of a castle with tomatoes being thrown at him
I refuse to be more precise. Interpret how you will (though clearly the time of castles has passed). -
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 06:26:21
Yeah but obviously public humiliation isn't going to happen...
But in terms of punishment I think USA has it mostly right. I think the punishments there are rather tough most of the time(lots of years in prison and potentially execution. I'm only talking about the states where that's allowed..).
I definitely think Execution should be a final punishment. It's not much of a punishment, more is in getting rid of one disgusting motherfucker. I don't see why a dime needs to be spent on lifetime worth of food for that sort of scum.
Not only will it get rid of the bad people but it will also put fear into people if they know there's a chance that if their crime is bad enough they might die. -
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 08:05:41
I think it's more of a moral case.
In the US (not in every state) they refuse to take human life by the claim that only god has the will/it's immoral to take human life.
I think it's right, but there are some cases where it's better off without the person, but that's only in specific and rare cases.
I do believe that prisons have become rather light punishments with implementing of luxury things such as vacations and special goods in the prison, and to be honest- I think it's wasted.
About public humiliation- that was the method during the middle ages regarding thieves and rapists, I have no idea if it will work better than prison/community service (for minor offenses). -
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 08:26:34QUOTE (Thewave @ Jun 27 2008, 10:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>About public humiliation- that was the method during the middle ages regarding thieves and rapists, I have no idea if it will work better than prison/community service (for minor offenses).
I don't think there's any point in discussing whether it will be effective or not, since it's not going to happen.
Starts with humiliation for minor offenses and ends with all sorts of mutilation for harsher offenses. We're not in the medieval ages and these sort of tings aren't going to return (and rightfully so). -
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 09:09:06QUOTE (Teatime @ Jun 27 2008, 11:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I don't think there's any point in discussing whether it will be effective or not, since it's not going to happen.
Starts with humiliation for minor offenses and ends with all sorts of mutilation for harsher offenses. We're not in the medieval ages and these sort of tings aren't going to return (and rightfully so).
I agree, too many civil rights movements will protest against it and will be eventually removed. -
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 15:44:19
i don't think that criminals who have murdered should go to jail. The thing is in Jails there are still gangs that can courdinate murders on the inside and outside. The thing is if you don't join a gang in a high security jail, then you will be killed. So I say that murderes should be killed themselves
-
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 16:04:29
But what if the convicted 'murderer' didn't commit it? What if it was someone else? Is it justified to kill someone who actually didn't murder someone else?
-
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 16:19:00QUOTE (Erirornal Kraione @ Jun 27 2008, 06:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>But what if the convicted 'murderer' didn't commit it? What if it was someone else? Is it justified to kill someone who actually didn't murder someone else?
Which is why murderers shouldn't be killed on spot but rather go to prison while death will only be for the harshest of murderers where there's no doubt it was done but the guy(stuff like included torture, mutilation, manslaughter and all those other bad words) -
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 16:54:10QUOTE (Teatime @ Jun 27 2008, 05:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Which is why murderers shouldn't be killed on spot but rather go to prison while death will only be for the harshest of murderers where there's no doubt it was done but the guy(stuff like included torture, mutilation, manslaughter and all those other bad words)
I think you might be misunderstanding the term 'manslaughter' here. Manslaughter is a very much lesser degree of murder. For instance, if you get into a fight at a bar and a punch accidently kills them, or if you are involved in a car crash that is your fault and the other person dies from their injuries. Manslaughter deals very much with cases in which there was no intent to kill, however, a death did occur and it was your fault. A typical sentence for manslaughter (at least in this country) is about 6 - 24 months imprisonment (very variable depending on the degree of manslaughter and the exact details of the case).
-
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 21:00:50QUOTE (Mats @ Jun 27 2008, 06:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I think you might be misunderstanding the term 'manslaughter' here. Manslaughter is a very much lesser degree of murder. For instance, if you get into a fight at a bar and a punch accidently kills them, or if you are involved in a car crash that is your fault and the other person dies from their injuries. Manslaughter deals very much with cases in which there was no intent to kill, however, a death did occur and it was your fault. A typical sentence for manslaughter (at least in this country) is about 6 - 24 months imprisonment (very variable depending on the degree of manslaughter and the exact details of the case).
I know that manslaughter is a lesser degree of murder. It's like...2nd? I think. or maybe it's the 3rd?
I dunno. Anyway, it just sounded cool in the sentence >.> -
Date: Sat, Jun 28 2008 01:55:05QUOTE (Mats @ Jun 27 2008, 09:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So prisoners:
Should murderers go to prison or should they be killed?
Actually, yes and no. What the hell is prison for? just to restrain them for while? What does that change? The world in prison is filled with crime, no?
We want the prisoners to change into someone good so they would try to compensate (not all about money) his wrong-doing forever in their life.QUOTEHow many years should people get for minor offences?
Offenses. I seriously don't know. You guys discuss.QUOTEAre there benefits in letting people go for minor offences with the threat of very harsh punishment upon repeating the offence?
I'm not completely sure, but i think no. people do same crime because they were able to get away with it the first time.QUOTEShould we allow public humiliation as a punishment?
No. Prisoners still have their rights.
-
Date: Sat, Jun 28 2008 04:29:13
teatime, i believe degrees of murder refer to... murder. The term manslaughter is quite simply, killing someone on accident. It's a seperate term. 1st degree murder is just plain murder, i think 2nd degree murder is like idk, supplying a muderer with his weapon and helping him hide the body, something like that
-
Date: Sat, Jun 28 2008 09:38:18QUOTE (Shadowserpant @ Jun 28 2008, 05:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The term manslaughter is quite simply, killing someone on accident.
Manslaughter is not killing someone by accident. That is accidental killing which is a verdict that goes without punishment. Manslaughter is the killing of someone unlawfully, without intent.
Manslaughter:
If I were to attack someone with the intent to harm them (for instance in a pub fight) but with no intent to kill, however, I killed them with a punch during the fight, or they later died from their injuries, there would be a verdict of manslaughter. I commited an unlawful act (assault), with no intent to kill or malice and the person died. This is manslaughter.
Accidental killing:
Someone runs at me with a knife. I panic and push them away with me and they end up going in front of a car. They later die from their injuries. I am commiting here, the lawful act of self-defence. There was no intent upon my part to kill, nor was anything I did unlawful. There is no fault on my part and I cannot be blamed for the death of the person. This is accidental killing.QUOTEteatime, i believe degrees of murder refer to... murder
That is correct. There are also varying degrees and types of manslaughter too. -
Date: Sun, Jun 29 2008 06:26:58
my bad, i forgot to put accidental killing that was your fault.
so yea, self defense killings would not be your fault. But starting a fight in a pub that killed someone would be -
Date: Sun, Jun 29 2008 16:40:51
My view on capital punishment varies, if you were a mass rapist of 12 year old girls; you should have your balls chopped off then just shot in the head I don't care about your rights anymore what about the peoples rights that you killed. So yes I support the death penalty yet I think it should be something rather than lethal injection, and yea there is always the chance of getting the wrong person but if you killed 4 people and DNA of yours was found on 3 of them, you might as well be shot on the spot. I say no mercy for those sick motherfuckers.
-
Date: Mon, Jun 30 2008 04:07:03QUOTE (Mats @ Jun 26 2008, 07:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So prisoners:
Do they get it too good?
Should murderers go to prison or should they be killed?
How many years should people get for minor offences?
Are there benefits in letting people go for minor offences with the threat of very harsh punishment upon repeating the offence?
Should we allow public humiliation as a punishment?
Discuss.
Prisoners get it way too good. Maybe if punishments were worse people would take greater thinking into what they are doing.
Murderers should be killed if they can be proven 100 percent guilty without a doubt.
Minor offences is to vague anywhere from I unoo 1-6 years depending on what they did.
Yes/
Public Humiliation sounds sort of a weird punishment. -
Date: Mon, Jun 30 2008 04:10:45
they made this one teenager hold a sign on the freeway that said i like to smoke weed and get caught
-
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 02:30:21
Public humiliation is more potent towards teenage offenses.
Seriously, even like a 20 year old woman caught for doing meth, put her naked on display in the middle of a city with a sign saying I like to ruin my body with Meth and other drugs. That will definitely leave an impression
As for murders, they won't be as affected by humiliation. For that, they should be tortured, humane is not the case. Was it HUMANE killing somebody? Was it HUMANE raping somebody? For the person to truly FEEL the crime and UNDERSTAND what they did, pain is the most real punishment you can get. In all honesty, a true rapist, not just a teen misunderstanding. Any rape by a guy should honestly be forced to lose his genitalia. That way, the priviledge of sex is taken away. Same goes for a woman.
Theft is a more lienient crime. Fines and probation with limited mobility are what seems the most effective. -
Date: Fri, Jul 4 2008 15:51:03QUOTE (Teatime @ Jun 27 2008, 04:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yeah but obviously public humiliation isn't going to happen...
But in terms of punishment I think USA has it mostly right. I think the punishments there are rather tough most of the time(lots of years in prison and potentially execution. I'm only talking about the states where that's allowed..).
I definitely think Execution should be a final punishment. It's not much of a punishment, more is in getting rid of one disgusting motherfucker. I don't see why a dime needs to be spent on lifetime worth of food for that sort of scum.
Not only will it get rid of the bad people but it will also put fear into people if they know there's a chance that if their crime is bad enough they might die.
execution should be the final punishment.is it worth to provide food and other things for those fcker?for me the answer is definetely not.they should be killed,is better that we provide food for those in africa or whoever needs help