Why do we like killing people?

F

fuzzy510

Guest
Actually, this isn't about murder. Sorry.

It's more about capital punishment. As of four hours ago, the United States has executed two men in an eight-day period. True, one of them, Timothy McVeigh, was a bastard that deserved to die. I'm not so certain about the other one, Juan Garza. Even if he DID deserve to die for running a drug ring out of Texas and ordering three murders, why is it that we go 38 years without executing a prisoner, then we executed two in a matter of a little more than a week?

Thoughts?
 
S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
I don't know the circumstances of the Garza case, but I'm inclined to think that it was coincidental that they happened so soon. McVeigh was the poster boy for the death penalty; he admitted his guilt, shed no remorse, and didn't want any appeals after his trial. Hence, his execution was fairly quick.

I guess Garza finally ran out of appeals or whatever.
 
Z

Zadok001

Guest
I can't speak for Garza, but I'd vote coincidence.

Personally, I believe the death penalty is something of a requirement in modern society. To put out a clear example, let's assume the US had a law prohibiting the death penalty. A random terrorist proceeds to nuke, say, San Francisco, killing 3 million people.

Life in prison? :)
 
S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Surprisingly(?) enough, the US is one out of a handful of countries that have the death penalty.
 
U

Ura

Guest
Garza was found guilty of brutally torturing and shooting to death one person himself and confirmed of ordering the death of two other men while being suspected of ordering the deaths of almost 30 others, while at the same time running the largest drug import smuggling ring in texas.

The time of the execution was just a well timed coincidence. With all the media attention on the McVeigh execution they paid little attention to Garza hence helping to lower the anti-execution tentions that arise around such things. If they were spread out you'd have two media circus' insted of one.

Spidy is correct about that as well as execution has been banned in the EU and the Commonwealth. Most of the other countries that still have the death penalty are in the middle east and Asia I believe.

I also agree with Zadok that capital punishment is something of a requirement in modern society. I certainly hope that there will be a day when it isn't nessessary, but till then, "string em up and let em sway"
 
D

Dementia

Guest
I don't exactly see the difference between zapping someone in the chair or locking them away for 50 years until they die. One way is just quicker.

Some people just don't deserve to live. Simple as that. Some might say "who are we to decide who lives and who dies". Well, we are the ones who have to live with them in society or pay for them to be locked away in prison where they are as good as dead anyway. This of course refers to mainly to those who have a life term in prison with out possiblity of parole.

I think people take death too seriously. If they weren't so afraid of dieing themselves they wouldn't be so reluctant to kills someone who most obviously deserves it. Course that's just my opinion I might be wrong about it and I realize there are a lot of holes in that theory. Never the less I believe it does play a role in some of this debate.
 
S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
McVeigh was the exception in that there was no question of his guilt and he was unremorseful. For a lot of people on death row, that isn't the case and the technology/circumstances may come about where they might actually be proved innocent.

Of those that are "pretty much guilty" (in that all evidence points to the certainty of it yet they don't admit it), should they be given "rehabilitation" and the chance to be remorseful?

Does the Middle East and Asia count as "modern society"?
 
D

Dementia

Guest
McVeigh was the exception in that there was no question of his guilt and he was unremorseful. For a lot of people on death row, that isn't the case and the technology/circumstances may come about where they might actually be proved innocent.

So just steal their lives from them instead of taking their lives from them? What's the difference that if you stick them in jail for 30 years then they are released? Same as killing them. Either way our hands our dirty. Might as well make the system work better as long as we're already ruinin peoples lives. I'm no where near a expert on the subject, but how many people have actually been proven innocent after they where sentenced? Not many is my guess. In proportion to those who haven't been proven innocent that is. I know some will say that one innocent person killed is too much, but our justice system is exactly squeaky clean to begin with. All and all I guess your right Spidey. I don't like it much though. Not one little bit.

Of those that are "pretty much guilty" (in that all evidence points to the certainty of it yet they don't admit it), should they be given "rehabilitation" and the chance to be remorseful?

Here is where I have to say no. Life is a privilege. In my opinion once you kill someone you have lost that privilege. In my opinion if they were worth saving or being rehabilitated they would realize that what they did is inexcusable and WANT to pay for what they did with their lives.

Does the Middle East and Asia count as "modern society"?

I dunno!;)
 
N

NeuroDeus

Guest
We at Malta do not have the death penalty/capital punishment... it was stopped in 1978 after an innocent man was hanged.

Does the Middle East and Asia count as "modern society"?

Of course! What a stupid question to ask. Middle East + Asia include Japan, Saudi Arabia, Isreal, Egypt and Russia who all have modern society standards!
 
S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Dementia:
So just steal their lives from them instead of taking their lives from them? What's the difference that if you stick them in jail for 30 years then they are released? Same as killing them. Either way our hands our dirty. Might as well make the system work better as long as we're already ruinin peoples lives. I'm no where near a expert on the subject, but how many people have actually been proven innocent after they where sentenced? Not many is my guess. In proportion to those who haven't been proven innocent that is. I know some will say that one innocent person killed is too much, but our justice system is exactly squeaky clean to begin with. All and all I guess your right Spidey. I don't like it much though. Not one little bit.
Click to expand...
There IS a difference between locking them up and killing them outright, it called LIFE. They still live. I don't know the restrictions on death row like visitations or communication but like you said, living is far more important than death.

I don't understand your statement "justice system is exactly squeaky clean" but claims of innocence definitely take precedence, I would think. Once you take a life, you can't take it back. But if you lock up a person, at least you can free them.

It sounds like you're agreeing with me in the end but until we have a fool-proof system of determining guilt, I would say not making hasty mistakes would be prudent.

NeuroDeus: What exactly is "modern society"? Having a caste system? Having Internet access? Having free speech? What?
 
N

NeuroDeus

Guest
u got me on that... Spidey... I just compared nations... Japan looks a modern society...
 
T

theorgg

Guest
I'd say one of the reasons for them is the current presidential idiot in office.

He's for the death penalty, thus people will push for it when applicable and not get presidential frowns heaped upon them.

The difference of Death Penalty vs Thirty years imprisonment is this: $$$$$$$$.

Keeping a man in prison for two years of a thirty year sentance where guilt was undeniable costs as much as frying him or injecting him. I find that very wrong. Why should our taxes be spent on keeping scum of the earth alive and controled?

I say "hang 'em high!" when they are beond a doubt guilty.
 
S

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
NeuroDeus: I think some of those countries can be considered "modern" or first-world, like Japan and Israel. Others probably are second-world. Whether that makes them "modern"... <shrug>

theorgg: Hey, I agree with you and Dementia when "they are beyond a doubt guilty". The problem is, how many on death row truly are? (and I guess on the flip side, how many are serving life sentences when they are "beyond guilty" and should be on death row?)
 
N

nodnarb24

Guest
I believe in the death penalty because it is more efficient. One thing is that it is cheaper for the tax payers. In my state it costs approxamitely $68 per day per inmate while a single inject cost at most a few dollars. Also if the inmate is gets the death penalty, he has less chance from getting out and reaking havok again. Also for you humanitarians, it is more human. What do you think is more human? Having a guy named Bubba raping you up the rear and other abuses till the day you die or be put to death and alleviate the suffering. I also believe in Hammurabi's Code, "Eye for an Eye, tooth for a tooth," if you give death you should recieve death. The only reason to be against it is the slim chance that the person on death row is innocent but since this is a majority rules society then the death of a few innocent should not out way justice being done to the majority that are guilty.
 
A

Apollo

Guest
Originally posted by Spiderman
theorgg: Hey, I agree with you and Dementia when "they are beyond a doubt guilty". The problem is, how many on death row truly are? (and I guess on the flip side, how many are serving life sentences when they are "beyond guilty" and should be on death row?)
Click to expand...
Well, the idea of our justice system is that they are only convicted if the jury is certain "beyond a shadow of a doubt". So, once they are convicted, they are all considered "beyond a doubt guilty".
 
S

Sammy Dead-O

Guest
Originally posted by Apollo
Well, the idea of our justice system is that they are only convicted if the jury is certain "beyond a shadow of a doubt". So, once they are convicted, they are all considered "beyond a doubt guilty".
Click to expand...
Actually, they must be guilty "within a reasonable doubt," which is quite different.

I know I'll be in the minority here...my bleeding-heart liberal tendencies often are...but I'll just mention that I'm opposed to the death penalty in all cases. It's a matter of life's sacredness to me. I don't believe that one person's decision to end another's life can remove an absolute truth like that from the world.

Counter: What if one of my loved ones were murdered? Wouldn't I want the killer to be executed?

Well, maybe I would, but I shouldn't, and that's enough for me to rest on this belief for now.

And beyond that, in most cases, our justice system is too screwed up to handle it "fairly," even if I agreed with its use. I'll seek out some numbers if anyone's interested, but as far as I know, being poor and black puts a big "death row" target on a murderer's forehead.

I'm sure I'll get some semi-flames for posting this; I'm not all that interested in debating, since I don't know how far I can extend the argument beyond my own heart, and since I'm not on here all that often of late. Still, I wanted the view to be represented here.

Thanks.
 
A

Apollo

Guest
Actually, they must be guilty "within a reasonable doubt," which is quite different.
Click to expand...
Actually, I'm believe that they must be guilty "within a reasonable doubt" in civil cases, and "beyond a shadow of a doubt" in criminal cases. Since killing someone is obviously a criminal case, the latter would apply.

Can anyone confirm this/tell me that I'm stupid?
 
U

Ura

Guest
Spidey:
"modern society" is to me at least a society that exists today that we could hop on a plane and go visit. Its things like say the Roman empire or fuedal Japan that aren't modern because they no longer exist in most senses. A countries technological development isn't a definition of modern society IMHO because its basically dividing the haves and the have nots into different groups.
Perhaps a term that can be used in place of modern society is a "civilized society" as the reason that many countries in the EU and Commonwealth banned capital punishment was because they felt it to be distastefully barbaric. *shrugs*

Nodnarb:
I'll also have some faith in hammurabi's code. However the majority rules part is where it puts fanaticism and vigilanteism before justice. Remember years ago in a little town called Salem where they had some "witch" trials and ended up putting to death and torturing a few innocent people simply because the majority ruled it in their own paranoid delusion. Hammurabi's code is just fine for the punishment, but the finding of guilt has to be more thurough then a simple majority rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top