 |
The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Why against death penalty?
Without death penalty, prisons would be overloaded. Criminals would be released to make room for new criminals and many of these criminals who were sentenced for life for murdering or raping someone would be roaming the streets where you live. lots of tax money is wasted on these criminals, people who plan to murder would have nothing to fear since they are guaranteed they won't get any harsh punishment and that would increase the crime rate. And the planet is already over populated, so why not get rid of the rotten apples?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jennifer Nicole on -
There has been found to a be link between Antisocial Personality Disorder and an underactive autonomic nervous system, which means they are biologically incapable of feeling empathy for others. There is also a link between APD and psychopathy, which helps explain why a large portion of people in prison who have committed crimes against others have been found to fit the symptoms of APD. Although, APD is often also involved in property and drug-related crimes. In fact, I have an uncle who would make a posterchild for APD. And when he's in prison, he studies, reads, and learns. But as soon as he's released, it's back to the old behaviors. =/
What I'm saying is when it's because of personality disorders, changes are harder to make, because personality isn't easily changed. And for some reason, sex offenders are more likely to reoffend than other crimes. It's the people who are there due to bad decisions and who regret those decisions who are least likely to recidivate. They're the ones who benefit best from the education and rehabilitation programs.
One of my friends wants to study a prison in Texas where they make the prisoners do old-fashioned hard work, because that prison has such a low recidivism rate. I don't know much about it, and she's not online at the moment to ask about it.
-
Permalink Reply by Prefer Not to Say on -
Do you consider the army that kills the enemy, double standard as well?
-
Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on -
"Killing is wrong...except here"
Unfortunately there always will be instances where killing will happen. Death penalty and war are two examples, but there are also the examples of self-defense, accidents, euthanasia and abortion. And the killing of other species for food, experiments, to put their heads on walls, or because someone can make money developing on their habitat.
-
Permalink Reply by Prefer Not to Say on
-
People misunderstood me, I support death penalty if the murder is on purpose/planned.
if there is 100% proof who's the murderer is, not 99.99% proof, 100% proof.
and it really does scare heartless people.
-
Permalink Reply by Jennifer Nicole on
-
I understood you well enough to not even touch that. I'm from Texas where we have the highest rate of executions in the U.S. We do NOT have the lowest crime/murder rates. It doesn't deter people because, as I already said, it is not immediate. It takes years for the appeals processes to go through before the person can be executed. It is not a deterrent. It does not scare heartless people. The only deterrent is when there are immediate consequences to your actions.
My internship as a senior at a university was with a group studying the effects of the death penalty on the community, both through research and (mainly) oral history compilation. I also did my capstone paper (undergraduate thesis) on how effective future dangerousness is as a determinant of who receives the death penalty.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim DePaulo on -
Consideration of the death penalty is not usually registering in the mind of a robber that the victim attacks and the robber kills, and that's 1st degree murder. The driver of a getaway car of a robbery in which a murder occurs but the driver is unaware of the driver is still charged with 1st degree murder.
About the only murderer that might consider the consequences are premeditated murders. For the others the possibility of the death penalty is not much of a deterrent.
For those reasons and the real possibility of an innocent person being executed I can't support the death penalty with the possible exception of mass murders - Tim McVeigh for instance.
-
Permalink Reply by Scott on -
Its hard not to want revenge when you have been wronged. When you are attacked or robbed you feel violated and insecure. I, for one, know that makes me want to strike out against my offender. In certain instances this response is correct, in others not. I know that the "eye for an eye" is older than the Bible. I'm sure it came about because people wanted reparations to be equal to the loss. This is fundamental as I see it.
It is only fair to want what is lost to be replaced with something of greater or equal value. Now we come to the problem of a death being of equal value to the life lost. As all things not with a set material value are worth more or less to different people I don't see this as possible. How do you decide what a life is worth? Is a child worth more than a old person? What if more than one life is lost to the same hands?
Now we can blanket statement and say a life is worth a life no matter the age or any other variable of the victim. Would that be acceptable to all?
So is the death penalty fair? If you can prove 100% the guilt of the offender then I say go for it. If not and there is still almost no doubt then make them do hard labor or something. People with life sentence don't need to be kept idle and separated. People that do inhuman things to others quiet possibly shouldn't be treated kindly.
Now there are different kinds of offenders. As stated some people have mental defects. I do believe the term is criminally insane. You can't punish someone for an imbalance they have no control over. You also can't allow them to run around if they can't be treated.
I don't buy into the whole "genetically" predisposed to crime. Thats just silly. I do agree that many people have had a bad upbringing. That is more of a problem with schooling and proper interaction with other people. So basically a problem with society. Lets just say that people are full of problems, all of us included.
I guess I don't have a problem with it in the long run. That is as long as it isn't the drawn out slow process we have today. That may be hard to do with the checks and balances currently in place. Also with out a guaranteed way of proving guilt that will most likely never happen. Unless we accept our flaws and just roll with it. You can comment on that last sentence as you see fit.
-
Permalink Reply by David Prentice on -
Scott, the idea that,
"I'm sure it came about because people wanted reparations to be equal to the loss. This is fundamental as I see it.
It is only fair to want what is lost to be replaced with something of greater or equal value."
doesn't make sense unless you see the taking of a life as giving something back to the grieving party. But the loss can't be recovered, so it's just the base human reaction of vengeance, which we should be able to rise above in our enlightened time. Or are we still back in the iron age?
The trouble as I see it is that we are still operating on that level, rather than accepting a societal responsibility for the disfunction of the perpetrator. Look at any serious offender and you'll see a background that you would never want to experience yourself. We need to change the culture to diminish the reasons for violent offences.
-
Permalink Reply by Justin L on -
i think if you plead guilty for premeditated murder , should be automatic death penalty. I don't care about killers and rapists.
-
Permalink Reply by Jennifer Nicole on
-
People plead guilty to receive lighter sentences. If it's an automatic death penalty, no one is going to confess. That would be a lot more court time needed, which they really don't have. That's why plea bargains are so popular. It's less money and less time.
-
Permalink Reply by Prefer Not to Say on
-
Well, taxes is strange :P. many murderers confess here or even turn themselves in to the police even though they know they will lose their heads, the reason why, they feel guilty and wish forgiveness from God so they hope he forgive them when they confess to the police, don't Christians feel the same? I know Texas is mostly Christian, but I know many of them are very racist, like a black man might receive unjust because of his color, I always find conservatives the most hypocrites anyway.
also, believe it or not Saudi Arabia is one of the safest places, it used to be unsafe at the time of 9/11 not because of crime but because of terrorist cells, but these cells don't exist anymore and even for an American, Saudi is still one of the safest countries.
-
Permalink Reply by Jennifer Nicole on
-
It works far differently here. People may plead out of guilt, but few of them receive the death penalty after. They usually receive life imprisonment without the chance of parole, instead. Meanwhile, they know that if they go to court, there's a good chance a jury will sentence them to death.
I can't tell you how Christians here feel about confessing to the law. I think most will settle for confessing to those who cannot report it to the law. >.X
I've heard differently for women, though. I've heard that Saudi Arabia is not a good place to be as a woman.
 |
 |
 |
 |
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Meri Weathers replied to The Big Blue Frog's discussion Gum Chewing and Talking In Class in the group Winning Arguments!
Tom Sarbeck replied to Joan Denoo's discussion Edward Snowden: War on Whistleblowers "Only Builds Better Whistleblowers" in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
Joseph P replied to The Big Blue Frog's discussion Gum Chewing and Talking In Class in the group Winning Arguments!© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
