Teachers and Students > Debates
Death Penalty Vs Life imprisonment
Alpha:
@Stylish Executive
--- Quote ---First of all, we must differentiate between law abiding citizens and law breaking citizens.
--- End quote ---
You know what? As I read your first line itself, I got surprised. WHY should you even differentiate between law abiding citizens and law breaking citizens??
Citizens are, first and foremost, CITIZENS. If they all have the same rights, they ALL have the SAME RESPONSIBILITIES as well! Whether or not they adhere to law is something that comes after, much after!
--- Quote ---Any form of punishments meted out to anybody will only deter law abiding citizens from committing a crime. It is not going to deter law breaking citizens, no matter how severe the punishment is. According to my view, law breaking citizens are too callous to be affected. We could give life imprisonment or death penalty to them, but it will only deter the law abiding citizens, not those breaking the law.
--- End quote ---
"Law breaking citizens" are NOT occurrences of Nature. To break the law is NOT natural. To kill somebody is NOT natural. If a citizen does not break the law, means he is abiding to it. Before being law breaking citizens, these 'criminals' (we're talking about serious crimes, not petty offenses) WERE law abiding citizens! And based on what YOU said, I can conclude that the death penalty is going to deter law abiding citizens from becoming law breaking citizens--- it is going to deter the formation of law breaking citizens (OUT OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS).
--- Quote ---Is there any punishment severer than death? I don’t know. To the law breaking citizens, punishments like life imprisonment or death are part of the game where the stakes played for are too high.
--- End quote ---
"Are part of the game" which the LAW is going to end. If I know the game would anyway be ended by the law (by my own death), why then in the first place itself should I be playing this game? I know if I kill for a first time, I will be killed by the law, I won't be in a position able to kill again. I know if I am going to play a big game, I will not be there later to reap the results of my "stakes", WHY then should I stake MY LIFE???
--- Quote ---
And anyways, law abiding citizens would never intentionally commit a crime which should be punished severely as giving a penalty like death.
--- End quote ---
EXACTLY! "Law breaking citizens" emerge from "law abiding citizens".
--- Quote ---This would happen even if there was no such penalty like death or life imprisonment. For them, being caught is enough punishment already.
--- End quote ---
If we are still living in a world where shame is greater than temptation, I would be on the seventh cloud! That would be so idealistic! BUT unfortunately, the IDeal has no ID. It is rated R- Restricted. R pushes ID out of the world we are living in. What is IDeal is not Real. :)
--- Quote ---So, from the above arguments, it has been proved that the frequency of crime has little or no relationship with the severity of punishment imposed by authorities. So we should adopt an approach different to deciding whether we should give life imprisonment or death to a severe criminal.
--- End quote ---
Life does not happen at the level of words. What you have put in words here is absolutely different from what happens in reality. "The frequency of crime has little or no relationship with the severity of punishment imposed by authorities"?? WHO said that? (So as not to ask: WHO the fool said that? LOL)
If YOU steal a first time and your Dad (hypothetically) cuts one of your hands, would you steal again? Fine, let's say you're a total rebel. You steal a second time and your Dad cuts your second hand. Would you BE ABLE to steal again??
That is where the death penalty plays its biggest role: cutting both your hands does not allow you to steal! You will HAVE NO HANDS TO BE ABLE TO STEAL AGAIN! Temptation then--- be it as strong as it could be--- without capability, is handicapped.
--- Quote ---If the frequency of crime has little or no relationship with the severity of punishment imposed, why don’t we adopt a more humane approach of life imprisonment? Sure, we could bend over death penalty and end the problem forever, but such an approach would make a country seem barbaric. Very few criminals can escape successfully from prison. Imposing life imprisonment would make our citizen's lives equally safe, but in a much more seemingly humane way, as it would be if barbaric death penalties were adopted for every serious criminal.
--- End quote ---
BARBARIC??? To you, death penalty, which is a punishment for killing, is more "barbaric" than killing is??? Isn't crime barbaric?? Isn't killing someone for no logical reason barbaric???
LOL, seems like it's become a new trend: people nowadays commit crimes in order to REMAIN in prison, most of them in order to get out of the poverty trap--- and that totally redefines "prisons" and their purpose!
Agree, poverty can sometimes be unbearable. But that doesn't mean we should bear crime!
In five simple words, prisons are not gratis hotels.
"Imposing life imprisonment would make our citizen's lives equally safe".
Let me put this clear. Somebody who kills deprives people of their FIRST, BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL right which is above ALL other rights: their right to life. A world infested with such people does NOT make our citizens' lives "safe". Walking in the streets with the constant worry of being attacked is NOT what I call leading a "safe" life. Going out with little hope of returning back in one whole piece (LOL :D) is NOT what I call leading a "safe" life. Maybe for you, "safe" has another meaning. :P
--- Quote ---The USA does NOT spend 25% of money on prisons. This information is incorrect. In 2008, the prison expenditure was 28.4 billion USD. HUGE isn’t it? NO! The GDP of US in 2008 is 14400000000000 USD. This expenditure represents only 0.20285% of its GDP. The difference between 25% and 0.20285% is too great. I don’t think it’s such a huge expenditure. Expenditure figures for other economies are likely to be similar.
--- End quote ---
Hey hello! $ 28.4 billion on WHAT exactly??? Food for the prisoners? Clothes for them? All their basic facilities? And what about the money that goes into building those prisons, on land, their opportunity costs?? The money that goes into the police force? Into the court? Into security measures? In compensations, if ever there are? In transferring prisoners?
Well, I don't work in the army, but I do have that little knowledge to be able to tell you that expenditure on prisons is not confined to inside the cells only!
P.S. Kindly let me know when you're gonna change your name, parents and gender! :P :D
--- Quote ---NB No offence to anybody implied. Debate is all about 'polite quarrel'.
--- End quote ---
Seriously, don't you get tired typing this every time? :P
I got tired reading it again and again. :P
Come on, we people here are not that close minded. Just read the debate rules and put a final full stop there! ;)
$tyli$h Executive:
--- Quote from: ~Alpha on December 18, 2009, 09:56:37 am ---@Stylish Executive
You know what? As I read your first line itself, I got surprised. WHY should you even differentiate between law abiding citizens and law breaking citizens??
Citizens are, first and foremost, CITIZENS. If they all have the same rights, they ALL have the SAME RESPONSIBILITIES as well! Whether or not they adhere to law is something that comes after, much after!
"Law breaking citizens" are NOT occurrences of Nature. To break the law is NOT natural. To kill somebody is NOT natural. If a citizen does not break the law, means he is abiding to it. Before being law breaking citizens, these 'criminals' (we're talking about serious crimes, not petty offenses) WERE law abiding citizens! And based on what YOU said, I can conclude that the death penalty is going to deter law abiding citizens from becoming law breaking citizens--- it is going to deter the formation of law breaking citizens (OUT OF LAW ABIDING CITIZENS).
"Are part of the game" which the LAW is going to end. If I know the game would anyway be ended by the law (by my own death), why then in the first place itself should I be playing this game? I know if I kill for a first time, I will be killed by the law, I won't be in a position able to kill again. I know if I am going to play a big game, I will not be there later to reap the results of my "stakes", WHY then should I stake MY LIFE???
EXACTLY! "Law breaking citizens" emerge from "law abiding citizens".
If we are still living in a world where shame is greater than temptation, I would be on the seventh cloud! That would be so idealistic! BUT unfortunately, the IDeal has no ID. It is rated R- Restricted. R pushes ID out of the world we are living in. What is IDeal is not Real. :)
Life does not happen at the level of words. What you have put in words here is absolutely different from what happens in reality. "The frequency of crime has little or no relationship with the severity of punishment imposed by authorities"?? WHO said that? (So as not to ask: WHO the fool said that? LOL)
If YOU steal a first time and your Dad (hypothetically) cuts one of your hands, would you steal again? Fine, let's say you're a total rebel. You steal a second time and your Dad cuts your second hand. Would you BE ABLE to steal again??
That is where the death penalty plays its biggest role: cutting both your hands does not allow you to steal! You will HAVE NO HANDS TO BE ABLE TO STEAL AGAIN! Temptation then--- be it as strong as it could be--- without capability, is handicapped.
BARBARIC??? To you, death penalty, which is a punishment for killing, is more "barbaric" than killing is??? Isn't crime barbaric?? Isn't killing someone for no logical reason barbaric???
LOL, seems like it's become a new trend: people nowadays commit crimes in order to REMAIN in prison, most of them in order to get out of the poverty trap--- and that totally redefines "prisons" and their purpose!
Agree, poverty can sometimes be unbearable. But that doesn't mean we should bear crime!
In five simple words, prisons are not gratis hotels.
"Imposing life imprisonment would make our citizen's lives equally safe".
Let me put this clear. Somebody who kills deprives people of their FIRST, BASIC, FUNDAMENTAL right which is above ALL other rights: their right to life. A world infested with such people does NOT make our citizens' lives "safe". Walking in the streets with the constant worry of being attacked is NOT what I call leading a "safe" life. Going out with little hope of returning back in one whole piece (LOL :D) is NOT what I call leading a "safe" life. Maybe for you, "safe" has another meaning. :P
Hey hello! $ 28.4 billion on WHAT exactly??? Food for the prisoners? Clothes for them? All their basic facilities? And what about the money that goes into building those prisons, on land, their opportunity costs?? The money that goes into the police force? Into the court? Into security measures? In compensations, if ever there are? In transferring prisoners?
Well, I don't work in the army, but I do have that little knowledge to be able to tell you that expenditure on prisons is not confined to inside the cells only!
P.S. Kindly let me know when you're gonna change your name, parents and gender! :P :D
Seriously, don't you get tired typing this every time? :P
I got tired reading it again and again. :P
Come on, we people here are not that close minded. Just read the debate rules and put a final full stop there! ;)
--- End quote ---
Alpha, Dear!, reading your post (especially the last few lines!!!) has led me into thinking if you are really angry with me! ???
If you have any grunts ::) or any other issues, or if I have hurt you in any way, please let me know, or at least PM me! We are going to sort this out!!!
Really, I Promise!!!
Alpha:
@Omer
--- Quote ---"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" Yea, sure, some (and not all) of the victims didn't "deserve" to die (and that is a value judgment), but does killing the murderer (who again, may or may not have intended, it coulda have been a "rage attack" even though hes not necessarily a psychopath) resurrect or in any way compensate for his crime? Yea sure what he did is wrong, whether he meant it or not; what does killing him do in favour of the victim?
--- End quote ---
We have courts and judges inside them sitting on chairs with a gavel and their most famous dialogue "Order! Order!", listening to both sides of the arguments (to the prosecutors and the accused), eye/ear witnesses, bystanders, and make appropriate decisions based on evidences and proofs. (LOL, I can't help laughing. XD)
Crimes can be biased, people can be biased, but the court is not biased. The law is not partial.
Defence attacks are given special treatment. "Rage attacks"?? Is "rage" a reason valid enough to justify killing? Rage is TEMPORARY. Is it a reason enough to end someone's life PERMANENTLY??
"What does killing him do in favour of the victim?"
An eye for an eye, like you said. Death for death.
Killing a criminal will prevent others from becoming victims. It will prevent other crimes from occurring. It will prevent other people from being robbed of their lives. It will prevent other families from losing their members, who might have been the backbone.
Prevention is better than cure. It's better to prevent other disasters from happening than to try to set things right after they have occurred.
And where has the word that dominates the court and the law gone??
JUSTICE. Killing his criminal does justice to the victim. It does justice to his family. It does justice to a whole nation.
To do justice is the main reason for which the law exists. If the law stops doing justice, people will lose faith in it.
--- Quote ---Agreed (basically i can't think of a rationale arguemnt, maybe you can debate against yourself? :P )
--- End quote ---
Wait, I'll get a mirror! :P :D
--- Quote ---Well when i said house arrest i didn't exactly mean a house :D no, i mean to provide him with somewhere to live with the lowest possible standard of living (that still allows him to survive)
--- End quote ---
I've already discussed about prisons being transformed into hotels in my previous post.
--- Quote ---Thats one way to look at it; another way is we're forcing him to make his own food, and whatever he sells will be what pays his bills, basically he ain't getting money we'll be just forcing him to earn his residence (the bills and whatever hes living in, be it a hut or a block of flats) and the excess will be given to the public in someway or another, in other words; he aint gettin no profit
--- End quote ---
And the third way to look at it:
Suppose what you say is practised, do you find any difference between a criminal and any ordinary citizen?? Any ordinary farmer?
The farmer makes his own food, pays his bills, etc. Besides, to do business, a criminal MUST have access to the outside world. Where has "security" gone now? Where is "punishment"? Where is "crime"? And see, where the "criminal" has reached!
--- Quote ---Build a 10 meters flat (as in no 3D texture or anything similar), make it only one entrance, everything out of concrete, and TA-DAA!
--- End quote ---
Better, make a bungalow for them--- with NO entrance at all, no underground tunnels, NOTHING!
The public wants to feel 100% safe!
The death penalty is the only guaranteed punishment that is going to make a criminal's first crime be his LAST one. We cannot eradicate crime. But if by eradicating criminals we can diminish crimes, that is justice to the world!
If capital punishment can help make this world a better place to live in, WHY NOT?
Alpha:
--- Quote from: $tyli$h Executive on December 18, 2009, 11:26:52 am ---
Alpha, Dear!, reading your post (especially the last few lines!!!) has led me into thinking if you are really angry with me! ???
If you have any grunts ::) or any other issues, or if I have hurt you in any way, please let me know, or at least PM me! We are going to sort this out!!!
Really, I Promise!!!
--- End quote ---
NOOOO NOOOO NOT AT ALL!!!
Oh come on!! Is it written "idiot" on my face? XD
That was only for the sake of making a good debate, THAT'S ALL.
WHY should I be angry???? :( :( :( You mistook me...
I am one of those people who do not carry grunts in life's luggage... That would be too heavy for me... ;)
Come on... We are not enemies here!!!
Anyway, if you feel I have been too 'rude', I apologize sincerely... I'm sorry if I hurt you in any way...
I never meant it to be like this...
Peace. :)
$tyli$h Executive:
I haven't been offended at all dear! Matter Settled!!!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version