Is this fair or not?

Who in their right mind would want to live in jail? There's NO freedom in prison. Geez.

People need to realize that freedom is a very precious thing to have.

Truly.

What you say is true, but there are people who would rather be in jail or prison simply because it's all they know. Others may think jail is better. It's a crazy way to think, but some people do think this way.
 
Actually, there are numerous psychological and sociological studies that claim the reason that the death penalty has no deterrent effect on murder rates is because the vast majority of murders fall into the category of "crimes of passion", not premeditated murders. The state of mind of the murderer, when committing a "crime of passion" is not such that, at the moment the crime is committed, they are even considering punishment.

I can't vote yea or nay to death penalty, as I don't know much about justice system, and hope I won't either :) But interesting claims.

But found a stat that was a bit telling.

Murders (most recent) by country

All the top countires for high numbers of murder got death penalty, while many with lower murders don't have death penalty. But it can also be that countries that fare well, are in less need for death penalty? Poverty-crime-punishment is perhaps related to each other. USA have a recent history of apartheid and a large population of ex slaves and illegal immigrants that I suspect makes the number of murder high, just below south africa, colombia, russia and india.

Like a class with long history of troubles needs a stricter teacher than a class that behaves well?
 
Here is an ethical question:

A rich man and a poor man commit the same type of crime. The rich man is fined $10,000 while the poor man is sent to jail for one year because he can't pay the fine. Is this fair? Why or why not? :hmm:

Nope.

Send the rich dude to jail too.

Inmates need fresh meat ya know.
 
Here is an ethical question:

A rich man and a poor man commit the same type of crime. The rich man is fined $10,000 while the poor man is sent to jail for one year because he can't pay the fine. Is this fair? Why or why not? :hmm:

No, it's not fair I'm a firm believer of "an eye for an eye" Everyone should be equal in the eyes of the law, should be punished equally with the same crime committed.

It's like saying should a rich man pay more in fines than the poor man? I'm sure a rich man wouldn't want to pay more in fines than the poor man. A punishment should fit a crime not a wallet. ;)
 
I don't need statistical argument to back my stance. It's just the way it is. BTW - I thought you would know me already by now based on 10000000000000000 locked threads in the past :lol: my decisions on anything is hardly from emotional perspective. :cool2:

oh btw - i forgot to mention that I want the use of death penalty to be narrowed. much narrower than now.

Ahhh, I see. So you have nothing to back your stance other than an emotional argument based on absolutely nothing but the way you feel.
 
I can't vote yea or nay to death penalty, as I don't know much about justice system, and hope I won't either :) But interesting claims.

But found a stat that was a bit telling.

Murders (most recent) by country

All the top countires for high numbers of murder got death penalty, while many with lower murders don't have death penalty. But it can also be that countries that fare well, are in less need for death penalty? Poverty-crime-punishment is perhaps related to each other. USA have a recent history of apartheid and a large population of ex slaves and illegal immigrants that I suspect makes the number of murder high, just below south africa, colombia, russia and india.

Like a class with long history of troubles needs a stricter teacher than a class that behaves well?

The majorioty of sociologists would agree with that statement. All about conflict theory.
 
Ahhh, I see. So you have nothing to back your stance other than an emotional argument based on absolutely nothing but the way you feel.

whoa... I dunno why but for some reason - that sentence just made me :dizzy: it's like a tongue-twister sentence
 
I don't need statistical argument to back my stance. It's just the way it is. BTW - I thought you would know me already by now based on 10000000000000000 locked threads in the past :lol: my decisions on anything is hardly from emotional perspective. :cool2:

oh btw - i forgot to mention that I want the use of death penalty to be narrowed. much narrower than now.

Ah, You cant argue on this topic merely basic all your assumptions on common sense. This is entirely Unanalytical and unsound. All you do is assume, and let your emotional involvement with this issue cloud your ability to see things in an objective manner.

Leave matters of death penalty to the experts, or actual academics of such disciplines in social science. Internet is in no way a substitute for learning and understand these real issues, not even a little bit.
 
I think Jiro is getting hammered by all the ladies today, :giggle:

I think we should keep the death penalty for premeditated murder, someone looking to out right kill someone else for personal gain. And for it to be effective the punishment would have to be carried out within 6 months of sentencing. As it stands right now, we have inmates that have been on death row for 20+ years and they are allowed to go outside in the exercise pen, and they get free cable in their cells plus 3 meals a day. Knowing that even if you were sentenced to death, you would likely still get another 5-20 years to live isn't much of a deterrent. You can still run a business, keep in contact with your family and what not all from the inside of your cell, you just have to do it via snail mail. While your sitting in jail running a buisness your kid and wife (or hubby) could be living it up outside your cell, not because they're swindling the income, but because you direct what needs to happen, and any extra money gets sent home.

I know this sounds like ridiculous emotional thinking(and maybe part of it is), but knowing that if you planned out a murder and got caught, and there was a chance you'd have just 6 months to live with a guilty conviction, you'd probably think that's too high of risk.

But I also understand why we have inmates sitting on deathrow for so long, its so that those who are wrongly convicted and are actually innocent can have an appeal to a higher court (and numerous innocent deathrow inmates have been set free by modern DNA testing that proved they were not the murderer). Six months is a short amount of time, maybe too short given how backlogged our entire system is. It would take years for us to get caught up on every single case.

But another part of me understands the 'crime of passion' where a jealous husband murders his wife's lover, or even his wife. Its the 'if-I-can't-have-them-nobody-can-have-them' sort of mentality. They really aren't thinking of punishment. They are just thinking of how the murder would solve the problem for them. These people aren't thinking correctly to begin with, they are just furious, emotional, and these are the ones that need life in prison with no possibility of parole.

And there also those women who get beat by their husbands and out of frustration, just decide to shoot their husband while he's sleeping. Would the death penalty justify them? Did the motive justify the murder? Do these women eve deserve any kind of prison time? Some get prison time, some don't it just depends on the judge presiding over the case I think, and whether or not the jury is sympathetic towards the wife.

The more we get into this, murkier it gets. Our legal system is very complicated, and even in this system, there are always exceptions to the rule.
 
Ah, You cant argue on this topic merely basic all your assumptions on common sense. This is entirely Unanalytical and unsound. All you do is assume, and let your emotional involvement with this issue cloud your ability to see things in an objective manner.

Leave matters of death penalty to the experts, or actual academics of such disciplines in social science. Internet is in no way a substitute for learning and understand these real issues, not even a little bit.

what the? I don't need internet to form my stance on death penalty. Everybody grows up differently with their own view. One is impacted by a circumstance in one's life that led one to be against death penalty. Same for other who is for death penalty. The experts..... like Supreme Court judges have ruled in favor to keep death penalty on the table :cool2:

in case you didn't know - quite a handful of laws are made by legislators purely on "emotional judgment" aka knee-jerk reaction... which are later repealed by higher court as unconstitutional - for ie. DC gun ban
 
An eye for an eye is nothing but a primitive form of punishment.

THIS is why humans will never evolve past the current state of bullshit.
 
what the? I don't need internet to form my stance on death penalty. Everybody grows up differently with their own view. One is impacted by a circumstance in one's life that led one to be against death penalty. Same for other who is for death penalty. The experts..... like Supreme Court judges have ruled in favor to keep death penalty on the table :cool2:

in case you didn't know - quite a handful of laws are made by legislators purely on "emotional judgment" aka knee-jerk reaction... which are later repealed by higher court as unconstitutional - for ie. DC gun ban

They are likely to have decided to keep it, to reserve it for extreme cases, and probably also profitable - obviously they wont tell you that. As for the DC gun ban, well it isnt hardly suprising, like wouldnt it be embarrassing to have a Capital city of the most famous country in the world to be shamed with high levels of violence (i was told it was one of the worst city in USA, this including from a freind who happens to live there!) so yeah they may have 'used' emotional tactics through the media-induced spin to fast-track the process to clamp it down and have the place much safer, which is of course is going to be politically-fitting for the capitol. It may be 'unconstitutional' but i think there is more to it than it meets the eye.
 
Back
Top