IGCSE/GCSE/O & A Level/IB/University Student Forum
Teachers and Students => Debates => Topic started by: nid404 on December 09, 2009, 04:40:37 am
-
I had raised this debate earlier on but i got a very weak response...
Now since I see we have some good debaters here, I would like to start a discussion again..
Capital punishment, also called the "death penalty," is the pre-meditated and planned taking of a human life by the government in response to a crime committed by the convicted person.
The death penalty gives closure to the victim’s families and loved ones. Losing a loved one is hard for anyone and for most it is not enough to simply have the perpetrator locked away for life. Family members and loved ones want and need closure in order to move on.
Life imprisonment is supposed to be a severe punishment too, but considering the money that goes into keeping a criminal alive for the rest of his life in prison, it seems cost ineffective...but it is considered more humane...
What are you views??
-
*ahem* ::)
where r all the debate lovers??
-
Of course life imprisonment!
If we give capital punishment to a serious offender, like illegal drug dealer, his 'punishment' is kind of 'one off'. His punishment is not continuous. So, capital punishment is not enough for a serious offender!!!
If we give life imprisonment, the prisoner will have to do community service for the rest of his life. So, the country benifits in some way. The cost of imprisonment and providing food is covered by this output! Moreover the punishment is more than capital one actually because the person has to do hardship and bear inconvenience of the punishment for the rest of his life. The country benifits, so do we!
-
Death Penalty .....
if you cut some one's hand who steal ...others wont dare to steal ...
If you cut the head of a murderer....others will be afraid to murder ...
Advnatages:
1.Ppl stays safe .
2.criminals will think twice or more before doing something.
3.not Expensive .
4.decreases population :P.
5.they deserve it.
6.ppl feel safe.
7criminals dont feel safe.
and much more ...
Disadvantages :
1.Gore :P.
Life imprisonment ....
they say ...we will plane to escape etc.
they wont be afraid at all ...
Advantages:
1.ppl might be safe for a moment .
Disadvantages :
1.they might escape.
2. criminals not at all afraid.
3.they will not think twice ,instead they will think once for how to hide evidence .
4.rich criminals usually come out by bribing the police.
5. Tortures occur "they are millions of times worst then sudden death !!".
6.Like 25% of the USA population are in prison .
7.costs a lot for goverment to provide them with medicines and food "while they deserve non".
8.They may all unite for a huge escape and they would want to revenge once they are out thus causing more problems.
9.there are much much more .
you choose .....
-
Of course life imprisonment!
If we give capital punishment to a serious offender, like illegal drug dealer, his 'punishment' is kind of 'one off'. His punishment is not continuous. So, capital punishment is not enough for a serious offender!!!
If we give life imprisonment, the prisoner will have to do community service for the rest of his life. So, the country benifits in some way. The cost of imprisonment and providing food is covered by this output! Moreover the punishment is more than capital one actually because the person has to do hardship and bear inconvenience of the punishment for the rest of his life. The country benifits, so do we!
For a serious offender...say a terrorist,rapist or a murderer, death penalty is what we should go for....how productive can a prisoner be?? We need more security to make sure they don't escape....too much money spent on a criminal...not worth the suffering...not at all
-
agree with vakarian, in the sense that it's the most effective way to keep criminal activity at a minimum
-
we got this topic in our english midterm
we had to write some kind of intro within this topic, which needed a topic sentence.
-
example ....
in schools ,when you cheat .you either get detention or 2 or up to maximum 8 marks deduced ..
in BC ,you cheat and you get banned ...and once you hear stories of band ppl ...how ever professional cheater you are ,you wont dare to cheat .
-
in my opinion, some people deserve to die.
-
No matter how bad your past is, you can always change
yes, you wont change in an instant, but everyone deserves a chance
if hes too dangerous then exile him far away
on the other hand, its pretty painful for those close to the victims to see the perpetrators walking alive while their beloved ones are gone
-
No matter how bad your past is, you can always change
yes, you wont change in an instant, but everyone deserves a chance
if hes too dangerous then exile him far away
on the other hand, its pretty painful for those close to the victims to see the perpetrators walking alive while their beloved ones are gone
Lol...an island for a criminal.....no citizen would like the tax he pays to go for the criminal...would u like to pay for an island in whicha criminal will live
-
Going on well... Continue... I'll join next week... ;D
-
in my opinion, some people deserve to die.
A.G.R.E.E.D
-
Lol...an island for a criminal.....no citizen would like the tax he pays to go for the criminal...would u like to pay for an island in whicha criminal will live
who said about paying tax money?!
lock him up in a house or something
or even better, make him swim to the island! :P
well well well, alpha still aint showing which side shes going for eh? :P
-
where do you think the money comes from omer??
Lock him up...and starve him to death??.....i think it's better to just hang him. :P
Lol...i like the swimming part...make him swim....till the sharks rip him off completely..w8 say :P
Alpha has to consider....get the facts right...then the argument begins...pages nd pages..lol
-
where do you think the money comes from omer??
Lock him up...and starve him to death??.....i think it's better to just hang him. :P
Lol...i like the swimming part...make him swim....till the sharks rip him off completely..w8 say :P
Alpha has to consider....get the facts right...then the argument begins...pages nd pages..lol
no no no we'll give him a sack of seeds he can plant his own food, he can sell some of it to pay for the bills
lol me never actually researched for any debating whatsoever lol
-
Hehehehe Omer and Nid!!!! :D :D :D:P :P :P :P
I'm busy this week.... Omer, had told you, my Uncle's wedding!! :P
I haven't yet read your posts... Not got time... ::)
Will read, balance the sides, and then, start... with my "pages and pages"... :P
Meanwhile, you can carry on... :)
P.S. By the way, Omer, that's a good policy. :) There is a whole world's difference between having to say something and having something to say.
But sometimes, you gotta pass through the first stage to be able to move on to the next. ;)
-
Some of you ought to be stating clearly about the side they are going for.
I'll be debating for capital punishment.
I believe that if a crime is damn serious and if all accusations are proved, the Death Penalty is an appropriate resort to rid the country of weeds.
@Nid
Life imprisonment is considered more "humane"?
Ripping off somebody's skin out of his body is more humane than hanging him till death??
For a serious offender...say a terrorist,rapist or a murderer, death penalty is what we should go for....how productive can a prisoner be?? We need more security to make sure they don't escape....too much money spent on a criminal...not worth the suffering...not at all
Agreed too, not worth the suffering... Our low income earners suffer too to pay tax and the govt. shouldn't be throwing this tax money into prisons.
@$tyli$h Executive
Lone$tar, you changed nick? Why? Your nick is your ID. Your ID is YOU. Anyway...
Community service can make up for what a criminal does??
Very well then, we'll position all the criminals as ministers. They'll be doing real "community service" then. :P
Moreover the punishment is more than capital one actually because the person has to do hardship and bear inconvenience of the punishment for the rest of his life. The country benifits, so do we!
And what about the people who are condemned to endure hardships as a means of survival? What about the old, weak labourer who is working day and night just to be able to feed his family? And the coal miner who endangers his life to be able to live? Aren't these people undergoing life imprisonment in some way? Can you compare them to criminals? Is that equitable?
Excuse me, but I don't find it beneficial to keep life threatening criminals locked up alive in prison cells. Our countries need to be clean. Our citizens need to feel safe. Our planet has to be free of manly dangers, considering all the natural calamities that we are already facing.
@Vakarian
Agreed, others won't dare. To indulge in a crime, one does not only need a victim, a weapon, and an opportunity, but also COURAGE. Victims are humans, the general public. Weapons, we can't stop their supply: nowadays, black markets are more thriving than legal ones. And opportunities, if they do not exist, can always be created. COURAGE is only what the world can shake. Others won't dare... It's the biggest justification.
@Omer
No matter how bad your past is, you can always change
yes, you wont change in an instant, but everyone deserves a chance
if hes too dangerous then exile him far away
on the other hand, its pretty painful for those close to the victims to see the perpetrators walking alive while their beloved ones are gone
Does the one who kills give a chance to his victims? "EVERYONE deserves a chance", the victim too deserved a chance.
Psychopaths are dangerous people, THEY can be exiled. Mentally sick people can be exiled. Criminals are not all mad. If they are to be kept under control, they should be under close observation. How can they be close with a distance of thousands of miles in between?
who said about paying tax money?!
lock him up in a house or something
or even better, make him swim to the island! :P
If out of every 100 earthlings, one is a criminal, HOW MANY houses would we need?!
The investment, the cost, the space... Just imagine!
no no no we'll give him a sack of seeds he can plant his own food, he can sell some of it to pay for the bills
And now, you'll give him a farm! :P
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We have thousands of people in the world dying out of famine while they don't deserve it at all. Why should we spend money and food on criminals then?
Punishment... Life imprisonment is like continuous death. Why not give instant death and avoid ourselves troubles?
Criminals can always escape. If you drive them far, THEY can come near you. "What goes around comes around." LOL
If you are in a cave with a dangerous lion, and the lion threatens to kill you, you'll try to kill it first, wouldn't you?
If a human is in the place of that lion and has already killed someone, why is the decision then so difficult to take? Would you wait for it to kill YOU first??
I know, a lion and a human are not the same. But a killer and a killer are.
-
As I stated previously, I am for life imprisonment.
First of all, we must differentiate between law abiding citizens and law breaking citizens. 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. 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. And anyways, law abiding citizens would never intentionally commit a crime which should be punished severely as giving a penalty like death. This would happen even if there was no such penalty like death or life imprisonment. For them, being caught is enough punishment already.
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.
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.
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.
I like dynamism. So I changed my ID. After I grow used to this ID, I will change again! Heck! I am thinking of changing my avatar too!
NB No offence to anybody implied. Debate is all about 'polite quarrel'.
-
Does the one who kills give a chance to his victims? "EVERYONE deserves a chance", the victim too deserved a chance.
"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?
Psychopaths are dangerous people, THEY can be exiled. Mentally sick people can be exiled. Criminals are not all mad. If they are to be kept under control, they should be under close observation. How can they be close with a distance of thousands of miles in between?
Agreed (basically i can't think of a rationale arguemnt, maybe you can debate against yourself? :P )
If out of every 100 earthlings, one is a criminal, HOW MANY houses would we need?!
The investment, the cost, the space... Just imagine!
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)
And now, you'll give him a farm!
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
Criminals can always escape. If you drive them far, THEY can come near you
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!
NB No offence to anybody implied. Debate is all about 'polite quarrel'.
Yups, we should all keep that in mind; one of the nice things about the recent debates is all of em have been in a friendly full of :P :D and ;D manner lol
lol i thought yourea new member until i saw your avatar :P
oh and one more thing i just remember; more prisoners = more security needed= less unemployment
-
@Stylish Executive
First of all, we must differentiate between law abiding citizens and law breaking citizens.
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!
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.
"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).
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.
"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???
And anyways, law abiding citizens would never intentionally commit a crime which should be punished severely as giving a penalty like death.
EXACTLY! "Law breaking citizens" emerge from "law abiding citizens".
This would happen even if there was no such penalty like death or life imprisonment. For them, being caught is enough punishment already.
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. :)
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
NB No offence to anybody implied. Debate is all about 'polite quarrel'.
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! ;)
-
@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! ;)
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!!!
-
@Omer
"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?
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.
Agreed (basically i can't think of a rationale arguemnt, maybe you can debate against yourself? :P )
Wait, I'll get a mirror! :P :D
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)
I've already discussed about prisons being transformed into hotels in my previous post.
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
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!
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!
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, 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!!!
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. :)
-
I haven't been offended at all dear! Matter Settled!!!
-
I haven't been offended at all dear! Matter Settled!!!
Thank You.... :)
I got worried...
-
well ...looks like the ppl who are saying they should be jailed have never been victims of a crime like stealing or some one they love getting killed and so on ..once it happens to you ,you'll know why they deserve death .
lemme ask you one thing ,if some one you really love is killed ,what you chose for the killer ? .
1.slow death .
2.sitting in a jail having food ,shelter ,new friends ,lazy days ,books ,tv ,gym and all those without having a job ,family and all those headaches .
edit : woooot ...this was my hundredth post :P .
-
@Omer
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??
the efficiency of the death sentence is not something I doubt; its the fact that the criminal will not get the chance to repent; Yea fine hesa bad bad man for killing someone, but why do we have to stoop down to his level? lengthy prison sentences will surely take deteriorate his soul; prison is not a "short ride" you go there, taste some of the worst food thats only enough to help you survive but not necessarily with adequate nutrition, whats going to be the result when the sentence is over? One, he could have learned his lesson and repented, or two, he could be back to his ways, but remember, its not like hes gonna go ahead and kill the first person he sees; most murders are premeditated , I am sure there is more than enough means to prevent him
"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.
An eye for an eye.... makes the whole world blind; it MYTE prevent other crimes from occurring, but most probably it won't. Murderers have causes to kill, once they killed that victim and accomplished their goal, there will not be much reason to go on a "pyscho-rampage" (and if he does, then hes a mental case, i.e. he should be referred to a mental hospital
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.
Again, the percentage of psychopaths and serial killers do not account for the majority of murderers, most murders occurr as a result of love/jealous or revenge; and in both cases I do not see how killing him will reduce the number of future killings, he's already accomplished his goal, he's just gonna try to move on with his life after he's out. Life sentences will rob a lot of his age and probably his fortune too, he will not be able to resume his life, at least now he has a chance to repent and do well.
Also, as you're a Muslim you probably know that already; a lot of countries (mainly Muslim) offers the chance for the murderer or the murderer's family to pay blood money to the victim; believe me, these sums are NOT little; if such a system can be applied then this way at least the family of the victim can have a more tangible compensation than just the "pleasure" of seeing the criminal killed
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.
Yes true, justice, the golden word of law. But how affective would killing the murderer give to the Family? A robber has to pay back whatever he robs to the victim, thats justice served; a company is ordered to compensate an employee for an accident because of a problem with the company's working area or whatnot, thats justice served. In both cases the victim gained something; what does the family of a killed victim get? Blood money is not gonna resurrect him, but at least the family is able to get some sort of a compensation, a compensation that costs the criminal very dearly financially and age-wise (since hes gonna be lsing a few dozen years in jail).
I've already discussed about prisons being transformed into hotels in my previous post.
yea i see what you mean, but look at it this way; isnt it the government's duty in the first place to make sure nobody has the need to do so? a jail is supposed to be the one place with the worst standard of living in the entire country! its not supposed to be a hotel, its supposed to be a place where you are forced to learn discipline and possibly have a chance to meditate and repent
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!
As i said before, my idea also includes that the prisoners are not ALLOWED to make any profit, farmers can; farmers can have the aid of capital, prisoners won't since they do not have profits and hence can't afford to buy any capital. And no, they do not have to access the outside world, the security can transport the goods for them; prisoners should never leave prison, its a part of the punishment
Better, make a bungalow for them--- with NO entrance at all, no underground tunnels, NOTHING!
The public wants to feel 100% safe!
yea but how will they get out after serving their sentence out :P
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!
That is ONE type of justice. But as I already said, its too blind, its not totally wrong, but it is not the best choice. Justice myte be served, but thats as far as it goes. Punishments such as the one i mentioned can actually help the country and raise cheaper food (since no profits will be made) for those who need it; and combined with paying blood money, this gives benefit to both the state as well as the family of the victim, not to mention the dear loss of age and finance of the murderer
-
-------------------------------
I agree with OT13 that a serious criminal could be sent to exile, perhaps a distant island, allocated for such offenders.
-------------------------------
@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!
Don't you think you are diverting from the topic a bit? I did not develop my point in one sentence. So you should not argue based upon your conclusion after reading the first sentence. So, I would advise you to read the whole paragraph, carefully, think and then argue for your conclusions based on the WHOLE paragraph.
-------------------------------
@Stylish Executive
"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???
There are many reasons for which a criminal commits a crime. It is not necessarily limited to need, or any other simple thing. The point which you illustrated is your thinking. You must understand that not everybody thinks in a similar way. I would suggest you to consult a mental physician if you want to know more about why people commit crimes.
-------------------------------
@Stylish Executive
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.
Why do criminals try to escape from the police, then? There are many poor peoples in the world. Not everybody of them are criminals. Only a minority of them are. That is why I differentiated from LAW ABIDING AND LAW BREAKING CITIZENS!!!. Every poor people has needs, but only SOME OF THEM ARE COMMITING CRIMES!!! I think you should have understood this. Again, you must read my WHOLE paragraph and understand what I am trying to say, then argue.
A man or woman who commits crimes to 'remain in prison' is mentally handicapped. And all of the participants of this debate (maybe except you!) will agree with me.
-------------------------------
@Stylish Executive
"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
YOU are opposing YOURSELF!!! You said that Everybody are citizens of a country. Aren't criminals citizens too?
According to my theory, the serious offenders (like murderer, rapists or drug traffickers) will be KEPT BEHIND BARS! The cells will be supervised by honest police officers. The criminals won't get any chance to escape from the cells, regardless of how much they try. This will make our citizen's life safe for sure.
I think you have a misconception/misunderstanding about the definition of life imprisonment. I would suggest you to look it up in wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment) . In a debate, you should always know what exactly is your topic after all.
-------------------------------
@Stylish Executive
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!
After reading this, I actually thought you are joking :D . But you seem to be serious.
Well I have one advice for you: KISS not :-* , but KEEP IT SIMPLE and STRAIGHTFORWARD! Also THINK this way!
To make it clear, 28.4 billion USD was the expenditure figure for 2008 on prisons. It was the TOTAL expenditure (variable cost, not fixed costs or external costs) for running the prison. Prisons are not rebuilt every year. It has already been built, perhaps long before you and I were born.
If you are confused about what are the variable costs of running a prison, it includes repair, foods, employing security measures and staffs and etc. You may wish to look it up in wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_cost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_cost)
-------------------------------
@Stylish Executive
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! ;)
You must understand that not everybody thinks like you (and me!)! As I said before, I am the co-admin of another forum run by my uncle. My experience is that if you oppose to somebody else, he/she occasionally gets offended even if you are polite. So, I write this. I am sorry if you get tired reading this again and again. I will write it again and again. That's my writing style when I oppose somebody. But considering your request, I am changing it.
NB. "if you are barely civilized, let yourself loose!"
-------------------------------
-
Damn you people write so much you make me feel so pointless to remain in the debate :D
Anyways, I combined $tyliSh Exectuive's Posts and combined them into one (Seven back-to-back posts was a LOT)
-
Damn you people write so much you make me feel so pointless to remain in the debate :D
Anyways, I combined $tyliSh Exectuive's Posts and combined them into one (Seven back-to-back posts was a LOT)
Thanks a lot!!!
-
Thanks a lot!!!
anytime ;)
-
Well I read through the arguments....pages n pages :P ::)
Anyway, I gave my stands earlier
Some of ull have gotten the point about the expenses ...not forgetting they all come from our pockets...who on earth wants to pay for a criminal
It's like the victim's family paying to punish the criminal...
And also considering that not all countries are rich to maintain prisons and pay for proceeding, security, etc, Death Penalty makes more sense in these nations
-
Well I read through the arguments....pages n pages :P ::)
Anyway, I gave my stands earlier
Some of ull have gotten the point about the expenses ...not forgetting they all come from our pockets...who on earth wants to pay for a criminal
It's like the victim's family paying to punish the criminal...
And also considering that not all countries are rich to maintain prisons and pay for proceeding, security, etc, Death Penalty makes more sense in these nations
You can't just send all sort of criminals, even who commit petty thefts to jail for life or hang them! (these type of criminals are usually more in number than serious ones!). Ultimately, you have to build prisons and spend money on them! Why not put serious criminals with them in the prisons?!
The criminals family and the criminal itself also pays taxes to provide basic facilities to the victim's family!
The poorer a country, the worse the condition will be on prison. So their relative expenditure on prison will be less.
And expenditures are usually considered in terms of % of GDP. If I have 100 billion $s, I wouldn't mind donating $200m , would I? ;) So, 0.205% of GDP is very small percentage!!!
Cheers!!!
-
I don't mean to say that evry1 has to die. We can afford to keep some alive and feed them.
Take for example, all the terrorists caught alive, or serial killers, rapists need severe punishment, that of death.
Some of these trials go on for ages. I'm tellin you cuz I live here in India and I see the pathetic justice system. Ajmal Amir Kasab was the sole terrorist caught alive of 26/11 attacks(2008), and his trial still continues, and what happens when it goes on for soo long, the criminal changes his confession every single time. When there is all the evidence, a full video footage, also people identifying....He was responsible for killing innocent civilians......I guess you knw abt the incident. Now I think a maniac like him deserves nothin but death
-
@Omer
the efficiency of the death sentence is not something I doubt; its the fact that the criminal will not get the chance to repent; Yea fine hesa bad bad man for killing someone, but why do we have to stoop down to his level? lengthy prison sentences will surely take deteriorate his soul; prison is not a "short ride" you go there, taste some of the worst food thats only enough to help you survive but not necessarily with adequate nutrition, whats going to be the result when the sentence is over? One, he could have learned his lesson and repented, or two, he could be back to his ways, but remember, its not like hes gonna go ahead and kill the first person he sees; most murders are premeditated , I am sure there is more than enough means to prevent him
"Stoop down to his level"... Ordinary citizens are not going to take an axe and behead him. The law will do the necessary. Punishment should be at the same level that the crime is. If the crime is below your nose, I don't find anything wrong if the law bows to give a similar punishment. If the crime is below your waist, still there is nothing wrong if the law kneels for the only sake of punishment. Similarly, if the crime goes beneath your knees, I don't find it demeaning for the law to even lie down if it has to give a punishment at the same level. THAT is justice. If the law "stoops down to his level", there is absolutely nothing belittling--- then only will there be a balance between crime and punishment.
"When the sentence is over"? When what sentence is over? If capital punishment is banned, the longest sentence--- the worst punishment--- would be imprisonment lasting for a lifetime. The criminal is going to rot in jail TILL DEATH. So instead of spending resources to keep him alive till he dies, isn't it more cost efficient to give him death once and for all? He MAY repent. But even if he does, of what use will it be to the country? Who will even know whether he's repenting or not? "To prevent him"... Who is even going to prevent him? How is he going to be prevented? Do you think before committing his next crime, he's going to announce it publicly in the newspapers? :P
An eye for an eye.... makes the whole world blind; it MYTE prevent other crimes from occurring, but most probably it won't. Murderers have causes to kill, once they killed that victim and accomplished their goal, there will not be much reason to go on a "pyscho-rampage" (and if he does, then hes a mental case, i.e. he should be referred to a mental hospital
"Most probably it won't"? Most probably, it will. I've already explained the 4 elements necessary for a crime to occur: criminal, victim, opportunity, courage. Kindly refer.
That becomes very easy then. A criminal kills and then goes on a "psycho-rampage". Instead of going to jail, he's sent to the mental hospital. Good strategy to avoid punishment. :P
Again, the percentage of psychopaths and serial killers do not account for the majority of murderers, most murders occurr as a result of love/jealous or revenge; and in both cases I do not see how killing him will reduce the number of future killings, he's already accomplished his goal, he's just gonna try to move on with his life after he's out. Life sentences will rob a lot of his age and probably his fortune too, he will not be able to resume his life, at least now he has a chance to repent and do well.
Also, as you're a Muslim you probably know that already; a lot of countries (mainly Muslim) offers the chance for the murderer or the murderer's family to pay blood money to the victim; believe me, these sums are NOT little; if such a system can be applied then this way at least the family of the victim can have a more tangible compensation than just the "pleasure" of seeing the criminal killed
"Love, jealousy and revenge"... All of which are mere human whims. I will ask you the same question again: do you think "love", "jealousy", and "revenge" are reasons valid enough to take up somebody's life? If you think they are, then why are humans even bestowed with reasoning power? Everyone experiences these emotions in life, that's natural. So what? Do they keep killing people because of these emotions? Does the law keep ALL the criminals in jail? Is someone else can kill because of "love", "jealousy" and "revenge", then everybody else in this world population of 6 billion should have an equal right! :P
"He's already accomplished his goal"... You mean he is never going to be a victim of "love", "jealousy" and "revenge" again? You really think so? Are we really living in such an ideal world? Once somebody has killed, to do so a second time is easier.
Yes true, justice, the golden word of law. But how affective would killing the murderer give to the Family? A robber has to pay back whatever he robs to the victim, thats justice served; a company is ordered to compensate an employee for an accident because of a problem with the company's working area or whatnot, thats justice served. In both cases the victim gained something; what does the family of a killed victim get? Blood money is not gonna resurrect him, but at least the family is able to get some sort of a compensation, a compensation that costs the criminal very dearly financially and age-wise (since hes gonna be lsing a few dozen years in jail).
Yes, blood money...
Oh but I really don't think the criminal himself is going to pay that huge amount of blood money, especially to the relatives of the one he killed. Else he would be a fool to have murdered. If he does that, then you can refer him to your mental hospital. :P :D
So, most probably, the burden will fall on the criminal's family and relatives. Now you tell me, in what way is it fair that all these INNOCENT persons pay for what ONE has done? Don't these persons, who have not wronged, have their own lives, their own expenses, their own financial limitations?
On top of that, we all know it very well: money CANNOT buy life.
How effective can money and taking away years of a criminal's life be compared to the life of a dear one which has been robbed?
Right, thank you for elucidating it.
A robber pays back whatever he robs, he returns the SAME amount--- justice.
A company compensates for an employee's accident, SAME amount--- justice.
A criminal has to be killed for killing, SAME again--- justice.
I repeat, no amount of money in the whole world, absolutely NO AMOUNT can ever compensate or account for the loss of lives. This is what our MORAL law teaches, leaving aside the judiciary system.
yea i see what you mean, but look at it this way; isnt it the government's duty in the first place to make sure nobody has the need to do so? a jail is supposed to be the one place with the worst standard of living in the entire country! its not supposed to be a hotel, its supposed to be a place where you are forced to learn discipline and possibly have a chance to meditate and repent
It is also the government's duty to diminish poverty. Has it done it effectively so far? It is also the government's duty to ensure peace and harmony in the world. But I can still see people fighting and dying in masses. Most countries claim to be democracies, should they then rely entirely on the government? Should 'free' nations that do not hesitate to raise a voice be wholly dependent on the government? A government does not make a nation. A nation makes a government.
"Worst" standard of living?
How true, poverty is a plague one must have endured personally to be able to have even the slightest notion of its torment.
Even if prison food is of the poorest quality in the world, at least, AT LEAST the prisoners DO HAVE SOMETHING to eat. Can you compare a prisoner with the innocent child who has not even had the chance to see a few grains of rice for days? To the people who have endured famine and slept on an empty stomach for the most part of their lives? To you, to me, to us fortunate ones, prison might be a hell, but for them, it's a rescue. For them, it's heaven on Earth.
As i said before, my idea also includes that the prisoners are not ALLOWED to make any profit, farmers can; farmers can have the aid of capital, prisoners won't since they do not have profits and hence can't afford to buy any capital. And no, they do not have to access the outside world, the security can transport the goods for them; prisoners should never leave prison, its a part of the punishment
***You made a mistake while quoting there.***
Oh, so what I can deduce here is a hidden form of slavery, which has been abolished a long time ago. If the prisoners are not allowed to make any profit, is it a productive investment for the country then? It's better to give these resources to others who are allowed to make a profit. Hence growth for the economy at large is assured.
If they cannot buy capital, how will they even make business? Should the government every time spend from its budget to get them capital? If the security starts transporting goods, who will do THEIR job?
"Prisoners should never leave prison". Fine, then the cultivation and harvesting will be done inside prisons. Give dangerous tools like axes, hoes, forks, spades, etc, to a population of threatening criminals, the guards themselves would need security then! :P
Alright, I'm not saying that your project is absurd. But we have different categories of criminals in jails. The less dangerous ones can be part of your plan, leave the fatal ones to cemeteries.
yea but how will they get out after serving their sentence out :P
Who said they will get out? :P
That is ONE type of justice. But as I already said, its too blind, its not totally wrong, but it is not the best choice. Justice myte be served, but thats as far as it goes. Punishments such as the one i mentioned can actually help the country and raise cheaper food (since no profits will be made) for those who need it; and combined with paying blood money, this gives benefit to both the state as well as the family of the victim, not to mention the dear loss of age and finance of the murderer
Well, I am unsure if there can be "types" of justice. Justice is a state of equality, fair treatment. Between two variables like crime and punishment, there can be ONLY ONE point of equilibrium. If "that is ONE type of justice", that is the ONLY type of justice.
Punishments such as the ones you've mentioned have flaws:
- Hidden slavery, unproductive investment.
- If food from jail is cheap, farmers' businesses will be affected.
- Money cannot buy lives.
- The "dear loss of age and finance" either cannot equal to the loss of lives.
If you have life, you have everything. If you have everything but don't have life, you don't have anything at all.
-
@Stylish Executive
Don't you think you are diverting from the topic a bit? I did not develop my point in one sentence. So you should not argue based upon your conclusion after reading the first sentence. So, I would advise you to read the whole paragraph, carefully, think and then argue for your conclusions based on the WHOLE paragraph.
Crimes are products of our citizens. Criminals and victims are all citizens. The police, army, jailers, lawyers, and judges are also citizens. The law is formed by our citizens, for our citizens. The government plays a role in citizenship too. No, I don't think I am diverting from the topic. I did not develop my conclusion in the paragraph either. Leave alone sentences, every word you say makes a difference in a debate. If not to you, to me it does.
There are many reasons for which a criminal commits a crime. It is not necessarily limited to need, or any other simple thing. The point which you illustrated is your thinking. You must understand that not everybody thinks in a similar way. I would suggest you to consult a mental physician if you want to know more about why people commit crimes.
There may be thousands, billions of reasons, a crime is and remains a crime. Besides, I haven't stated any reason here. You must read properly. "Game" here refers to "crime", "killing". I haven't illustrated MY thinking. I used the first person to illustrate the basic reasoning of ANY rational individual. I would suggest you to read carefully. ;)
Why do criminals try to escape from the police, then? There are many poor peoples in the world. Not everybody of them are criminals. Only a minority of them are. That is why I differentiated from LAW ABIDING AND LAW BREAKING CITIZENS!!!. Every poor people has needs, but only SOME OF THEM ARE COMMITING CRIMES!!! I think you should have understood this. Again, you must read my WHOLE paragraph and understand what I am trying to say, then argue.
So you accept it: criminals try to escape from the police. Point noted.
I never said every poor person is a criminal. I've used the word "trend" and a colon, meaning that I'm talking about those who follow this trend. You must pay attention to my words. ;)
"Some of them are committing crimes", in capital. So you agree with me again. Second point noted.
I've talked about poverty and crime and the relationship existing between these two in my previous arguments in response to Omer's. Kindly refer to the fifth quote.
A man or woman who commits crimes to 'remain in prison' is mentally handicapped. And all of the participants of this debate (maybe except you!) will agree with me.
Oh, how did you guess that! Even if everybody else comes to agree with you, I will still be the first, last and only one standing at the extreme side. :P
How can you qualify people who are trying to fill up their stomachs even if that means they have to face most dire circumstances as "mentally handicapped"? Victims of pitiful conditions are "mentally handicapped"? Poverty-stricken people in search of a shelter are "mentally handicapped"? Did these people choose to be poor?
YOU are opposing YOURSELF!!! You said that Everybody are citizens of a country. Aren't criminals citizens too?
According to my theory, the serious offenders (like murderer, rapists or drug traffickers) will be KEPT BEHIND BARS! The cells will be supervised by honest police officers. The criminals won't get any chance to escape from the cells, regardless of how much they try. This will make our citizen's life safe for sure.
Yes, I said that and I know I said that. Criminals are citizens, I said it again in my first paragraph (and one more time here, makes it 4 times :P). So what? If they are citizens, does it mean they have the right to deprive others of their rights? And if they have committed crimes, which right of theirs departs them from punishment? "Honest police officers". These days, we have more corrupt ones. "KEPT BEHIND BARS", which is costly.
I think you have a misconception/misunderstanding about the definition of life imprisonment. I would suggest you to look it up in wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment . In a debate, you should always know what exactly is your topic after all.
If I was unsure about the terminologies, I would not have done this debate at all.
After reading this, I actually thought you are joking :D . But you seem to be serious.
Well I have one advice for you: KISS not :-* , but KEEP IT SIMPLE and STRAIGHTFORWARD! Also THINK this way!
I was both joking and serious.
Very well, thanks. In return, I have one advice for you too: MISS not ;), but MAKE IT SURE and SECURE. Also ACT this way.
To make it clear, 28.4 billion USD was the expenditure figure for 2008 on prisons. It was the TOTAL expenditure (variable cost, not fixed costs or external costs) for running the prison. Prisons are not rebuilt every year. It has already been built, perhaps long before you and I were born.
If you are confused about what are the variable costs of running a prison, it includes repair, foods, employing security measures and staffs and etc. You may wish to look it up in wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_cost
"The $28.4 billion State operating cost, divided by the U.S. resident population, resulted in a nationwide average operating expenditure of $100 per person.
States spent $29.5 billion for prisons in 2001, about a $5½ billion increase from 1996, after adjusting for inflation
* Prison operations consumed about 77% of State correctional costs in FY 2001. The remaining 23% was spent on juvenile justice, probation and parole, community-based corrections, and central office administration.
* State correctional expenditures increased 145% in 2001 constant dollars from $15.6 billion in FY 1986 to $38.2 billion in FY 2001; prison expenditures increased 150% from $11.7 billion to $29.5 billion.
* Excluding capital spending, the average cost of operating State prisons in FY 2001 was $100 per U.S. resident, up from $90 in FY 1996.
* Outlays for new prison construction, renovations, equipment, and other capital account activities amounted to less than 4% of total prison expenditures in most States.
* Spending on medical care for State prisoners totaled $3.3 billion, or 12% of operating expenditures in 2001.
Correctional authorities spent $38.2 billion to maintain the Nation’s State correctional systems in fiscal year 2001, including $29.5 billion specifically for adult correctional facilities. Day-to-day operating expenses totaled $28.4 billion, and capital outlays for land, new building, and renovations, 1.1 billion."
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report
If you are confused about Opportunity costs, which I talked about earlier, you may wish to look it up too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost :P
You must understand that not everybody thinks like you (and me!)! As I said before, I am the co-admin of another forum run by my uncle. My experience is that if you oppose to somebody else, he/she occasionally gets offended even if you are polite. So, I write this. I am sorry if you get tired reading this again and again. I will write it again and again. That's my writing style when I oppose somebody. But considering your request, I am changing it.
NB. "if you are barely civilized, let yourself loose!"
You must also understand that the debating rules already exist. Did your experience not tell you that if you repeat it more than often, you give your opponents the impression that you think they are innately 'barbarous'? That's why I told you this...
Anyway, if you like writing it, it's your choice, none of my concern.
Chill!!! LOL
-
@Vakarian
Thank you for the post...:)
I was feeling lonely... ::) against two... lol
@Nid
I completely agree with you. The money comes from OUR pockets. Stylish Executive's "very small percentage" represents a very big sum, which can be used elsewhere. And a big burden on citizens who DON'T have this money.
@Omer
Damn you people write so much you make me feel so pointless to remain in the debate :D
Without you, the debate is pointless. :D
Ah yea, I do am typing a lot... ::)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I maintain my arguments. The death penalty is a punishment. It should NOT be criminalized.
P.S. While reading your arguments, I've had a closer look to mine. It looks like I'm shouting... Honestly, I had not taken notice of that while typing... I was tired, moody and in a hurry, I let that slip by...
Stylish Executive, I apologize again... I never meant to be offensive, even if I did seem... I don't want this debate to turn into a personal one.
Omer, I'm sincerely sorry if you've been victimized too.
-
@Vakarian
Thank you for the post...:)
I was feeling lonely... ::) against two... lol
@Nid
I completely agree with you. The money comes from OUR pockets. Stylish Executive's "very small percentage" represents a very big sum, which can be used elsewhere. And a big burden on citizens who DON'T have this money.
@Omer
Without you, the debate is pointless. :D
Ah yea, I do am typing a lot... ::)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I maintain my arguments. The death penalty is a punishment. It should NOT be criminalized.
P.S. While reading your arguments, I've had a closer look to mine. It looks like I'm shouting... Honestly, I had not taken notice of that while typing... I was tired, moody and in a hurry, I let that slip by...
Stylish Executive, I apologize again... I never meant to be offensive, even if I did seem... I don't want this debate to turn into a personal one.
Omer, I'm sincerely sorry if you've been victimized too.
n i fink in mauritius we really nid it now!! its a must to stop all those crimes n violenccce
-
n i fink in mauritius we really nid it now!! its a must to stop all those crimes n violenccce
Yup, thank you... First time I see you in the Debates Section, welcome. ;) :D
-
n i fink in mauritius we really nid it now!! its a must to stop all those crimes n violenccce
Hi,
I suppose you are debating for capital punishment. Carry on.
Cheers!!!
-
I don't mean to say that evry1 has to die. We can afford to keep some alive and feed them.
Take for example, all the terrorists caught alive, or serial killers, rapists need severe punishment, that of death.
Some of these trials go on for ages. I'm tellin you cuz I live here in India and I see the pathetic justice system. Ajmal Amir Kasab was the sole terrorist caught alive of 26/11 attacks(2008), and his trial still continues, and what happens when it goes on for soo long, the criminal changes his confession every single time. When there is all the evidence, a full video footage, also people identifying....He was responsible for killing innocent civilians......I guess you knw abt the incident. Now I think a maniac like him deserves nothin but death
We must never be emotional. Emotion will only bring us grief. It'll just defeat us!
I know very well about the Mumbai rail attacks and agree that Ajmal Ameer Kasab needs to be prosecuted to the maximum possible extent under the law of India. So, our objective here is to determine what is the maximum possible punishment.
This is what an emotional person would say:
"OH!, THIS IS THE SON OF A BI**H AJMAL, RESPONSIBLE FOR 173 DEATHS. I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANYTHING, JUST HANG HIM AT ONCE!!! JUST DO IT, YOU IDIOTS!!!"
I would say:
"Our objective is to maximise his punishment. In order to do this, death penalty is not the most effective way. After his death by lethal injection, electric chair or any other thing, his worldly punishment will come to an end. So, we should better imprison him for life. There he will eat a bare minimum of the worst quality foods, sit alone in a locked cell for all day, won't get to talk with his family, lie on a wooden bed, do odd jobs and will be tortured if he does anything wrong. He will have to bear these inconveniences for the rest of his life! No punishment, not even death itself, is greater than this!!!"
I hope I've illustrated my point!
Cheers!!!
-
I will be absent from this forum for the next 2 or 3 days because I will have to attend an award ceremony and possibly a few TV and Radio interviews.
~Alpha, dear, I read your latest reply against my post. At an initial glance, I think that your arguements and strands were weak, feeble and fragile. However, I have no time to argue to them now. But I'll do so when I come back. In the meanwhile, I would advise you to revise them and build up a solid foundation for them.
Cheers!!!
-
On a side note:
I did notice one thing very interesting. In this debate, ALL girls were for Death Penalty! Some boys, like OT13 were for life imprisonment. Most were for death penalty though!
Does this mean that the girls around here are all merciless?!!!
Pun intended, though!!!
Cheer UP!!!
-
On a side note:
I did notice one thing very interesting. In this debate, ALL girls were for Death Penalty! Some boys, like OT13 were for life imprisonment. Most were for death penalty though!
Does this mean that the girls around here are all merciless?!!!
Pun intended, though!!!
Cheer UP!!!
I was for capital punishment cause Nid was alone here... Someone needed to help her. ;)
Girls are not merciless, LOL. :P On the contrary.... :D
-
I was for capital punishment cause Nid was alone here... Someone needed to help her. ;)
Girls are not merciless, LOL. :P On the contrary.... :D
Can we shake hands? :) As far as I can understand, it was not your own wish to debate for Capital Punishment. How about you change your strand to Life Imprisonment? :) If you agree, this debate virtually ends here.
-
Can we shake hands? :) As far as I can understand, it was not your own wish to debate for Capital Punishment. How about you change your strand to Life Imprisonment? :) If you agree, this debate virtually ends here.
Sure, we can shake hands... :)
But if I agree, the debate virtually ends, like you said. ;)
My wish was to make a good debate, period here. Capital punishment or Life Imprisonment, any side you take, how you advocate is most important... I did tell you that in my mail...
I started with Capital Punishment, I'll continue to support the same cause... I can't drop my cause; I'll be loyal to it.
Maybe next time, we can be co-debaters. :)
If only the others participated actively, would have been nice.
Thank you for your participation. Thank you Omer, I appreciate it. :)
Hope you two will not give up. ;)
I will be absent from this forum for the next 2 or 3 days because I will have to attend an award ceremony and possibly a few TV and Radio interviews.
~Alpha, dear, I read your latest reply against my post. At an initial glance, I think that your arguements and strands were weak, feeble and fragile. However, I have no time to argue to them now. But I'll do so when I come back. In the meanwhile, I would advise you to revise them and build up a solid foundation for them.
Cheers!!!
I missed this post...
Alright, I'll be waiting... for your 'strong' arguments. Let us see what you found... :)
-
@Omer
"Stoop down to his level"... Ordinary citizens are not going to take an axe and behead him. The law will do the necessary. Punishment should be at the same level that the crime is. If the crime is below your nose, I don't find anything wrong if the law bows to give a similar punishment. If the crime is below your waist, still there is nothing wrong if the law kneels for the only sake of punishment. Similarly, if the crime goes beneath your knees, I don't find it demeaning for the law to even lie down if it has to give a punishment at the same level. THAT is justice. If the law "stoops down to his level", there is absolutely nothing belittling--- then only will there be a balance between crime and punishment.
Well now thats a value judgment, every one has his own :) . I can understand how sometimes the family of the victims will be mad and enraged; will this be the case one year later? They lost this dear one (whoever he may be), nothing tangible is to be gained by killing the criminal. Some find that the sheer "serving of justice" is good enough, others think its not. For me personally, I believe the general rule is no, it ain't good enough. But thats not with each and every single case.
"When the sentence is over"? When what sentence is over? If capital punishment is banned, the longest sentence--- the worst punishment--- would be imprisonment lasting for a lifetime. The criminal is going to rot in jail TILL DEATH. So instead of spending resources to keep him alive till he dies, isn't it more cost efficient to give him death once and for all? He MAY repent. But even if he does, of what use will it be to the country? Who will even know whether he's repenting or not? "To prevent him"... Who is even going to prevent him? How is he going to be prevented? Do you think before committing his next crime, he's going to announce it publicly in the newspapers? :P
Weeeeeell ::)
Not all murders are "first-class" (not sure aobut the term) murderers. A lot of murders are "self-defensive" or "unintentional". They deserve punishment, but not the maximum, don't you agree ::). And about the life-time ones, heres another way to look at it; death is an instant punishment, prison is not; death yields no tangible rewards not for the state nor the victim, prison can yield some sort of reward for the state (a lot of prisoners do some form of work while they're in jail), the victim
"Most probably it won't"? Most probably, it will. I've already explained the 4 elements necessary for a crime to occur: criminal, victim, opportunity, courage. Kindly refer.
yea i did, but I am saying that if you had a reason to kill and you killed, why would you kill again ???
That becomes very easy then. A criminal kills and then goes on a "psycho-rampage". Instead of going to jail, he's sent to the mental hospital. Good strategy to avoid punishment. :P
psycho hospitals are not exactly a walk thru the park now are they :D
"Love, jealousy and revenge"... All of which are mere human whims. I will ask you the same question again: do you think "love", "jealousy", and "revenge" are reasons valid enough to take up somebody's life? If you think they are, then why are humans even bestowed with reasoning power? Everyone experiences these emotions in life, that's natural. So what? Do they keep killing people because of these emotions? Does the law keep ALL the criminals in jail? Is someone else can kill because of "love", "jealousy" and "revenge", then everybody else in this world population of 6 billion should have an equal right! :P
Well thats what I am saying, sometimes love, jealousy, revenge; there will always be a moment, a "red zone" where a human will not be able to contain his emotions, when his brain is unable to discipline him; and ends up doing thing he normally wouldn't do, things he would regret the next day even if he wasn't punished.
"He's already accomplished his goal"... You mean he is never going to be a victim of "love", "jealousy" and "revenge" again? You really think so? Are we really living in such an ideal world? Once somebody has killed, to do so a second time is easier.
No, but whats the minumum life sentence do you get for killing, be it a "first-class" or a "third-class"? legal age is 18, lets assume you killed and served your sentence as a "third-class" killer; how old will you be by then? How much of your youth would have been wasted? Won't all of this come to the criminal's mind before he thinks about killing again? Yea i know I talked about the "red-zone" but it is possible if you have the right kind of pressure to control it.
Yes, blood money...
Oh but I really don't think the criminal himself is going to pay that huge amount of blood money, especially to the relatives of the one he killed. Else he would be a fool to have murdered. If he does that, then you can refer him to your mental hospital. :P :D
So, most probably, the burden will fall on the criminal's family and relatives. Now you tell me, in what way is it fair that all these INNOCENT persons pay for what ONE has done? Don't these persons, who have not wronged, have their own lives, their own expenses, their own financial limitations?
On top of that, we all know it very well: money CANNOT buy life.
lol yea, on some cases the criminal's family can chip on, but thats only after they are sure he is absolutely and completely broke. Its not gonna bring back the victim, but it provides a tangible aid to the family of the victim. And remember, the criminal's family is not obliged to do so, its up to them at the end of the day.
How effective can money and taking away years of a criminal's life be compared to the life of a dear one which has been robbed?
Right, thank you for elucidating it.
A robber pays back whatever he robs, he returns the SAME amount--- justice.
A company compensates for an employee's accident, SAME amount--- justice.
A criminal has to be killed for killing, SAME again--- justice.
I repeat, no amount of money in the whole world, absolutely NO AMOUNT can ever compensate or account for the loss of lives. This is what our MORAL law teaches, leaving aside the judiciary system.
You said it yourself, SAME amount, the compensation in the top two cases is enough to um, compensate (can't think of another word :D ) for the loss. The compensation "undoes" the crime, is this the case with the third case? I never said that the money is enough compensation, but I do know that it gives a tangible gain for the family of the victim, killing the criminal does not give any tangible benefit to them
It is also the government's duty to diminish poverty. Has it done it effectively so far? It is also the government's duty to ensure peace and harmony in the world. But I can still see people fighting and dying in masses. Most countries claim to be democracies, should they then rely entirely on the government? Should 'free' nations that do not hesitate to raise a voice be wholly dependent on the government? A government does not make a nation. A nation makes a government.
Agreed on pretty much the entire paragraph :)
True, a lot of governments are not doing what they are supposed to, but this is not a reason to raise the responsibility off it, actually we should press on them even more
"Worst" standard of living?
How true, poverty is a plague one must have endured personally to be able to have even the slightest notion of its torment.
Even if prison food is of the poorest quality in the world, at least, AT LEAST the prisoners DO HAVE SOMETHING to eat. Can you compare a prisoner with the innocent child who has not even had the chance to see a few grains of rice for days? To the people who have endured famine and slept on an empty stomach for the most part of their lives? To you, to me, to us fortunate ones, prison might be a hell, but for them, it's a rescue. For them, it's heaven on Earth.
Again agreed, and again government is the one to blame.
***You made a mistake while quoting there.***
oops, sorry :-[
Oh, so what I can deduce here is a hidden form of slavery, which has been abolished a long time ago. If the prisoners are not allowed to make any profit, is it a productive investment for the country then? It's better to give these resources to others who are allowed to make a profit. Hence growth for the economy at large is assured.
Yes, I guess you can say it is synonymous with slavery. Sure the world is gonna go crazy "ooh no! slavery! tyrant! kill him!" but hey, slavery was something forced upon people who did not deserve it. My idea is more of a punishment, they practically "asked for it"
If they cannot buy capital, how will they even make business? Should the government every time spend from its budget to get them capital? If the security starts transporting goods, who will do THEIR job?
No, the government shouldnt get them capital either; the primary aim of this idea is to punish more than to raise the a country's GDP. Our great-great-great grandparents didn't have tractors now or harvesters now did they, but they still managed to farm.
Um, get extra security?
"Prisoners should never leave prison". Fine, then the cultivation and harvesting will be done inside prisons. Give dangerous tools like axes, hoes, forks, spades, etc, to a population of threatening criminals, the guards themselves would need security then! :P
okay you got me there :-X :D
Alright, I'm not saying that your project is absurd. But we have different categories of criminals in jails. The less dangerous ones can be part of your plan, leave the fatal ones to cemeteries.
Yay me!
Who said they will get out? :P
look up ;D
Well, I am unsure if there can be "types" of justice. Justice is a state of equality, fair treatment. Between two variables like crime and punishment, there can be ONLY ONE point of equilibrium. If "that is ONE type of justice", that is the ONLY type of justice.
Again, my failure to express my point properly; what i am trying to say is, justice, as "fair" as it is, is not necessarily always the "right" choice. best way I can express it (and i'm sure you're sick of me saying it agin and again) is the "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" thingy :D
Punishments such as the ones you've mentioned have flaws:
- Hidden slavery, unproductive investment.
This is not the primary target, punishment is.
- If food from jail is cheap, farmers' businesses will be affected.
True, but as i mentioned somewhere earlier, if my plan is to be followed, then the "prisoner yield" is not supposed to be available for the public market. it could be given to chairty, like maybe for the poor or the orphans, or it could also be given to the farmers.
- Money cannot buy lives.
True, but killing the criminal will not get the lost life back either
- The "dear loss of age and finance" either cannot equal to the loss of lives.
Again, it is not equal, but it goes a long way
If you have life, you have everything. If you have everything but don't have life, you don't have anything at all.
Last part i agree, first part, nopes.
-
Thank you Omer, I appreciate it. :)
Thank you for thanking me :D
-
I'm back guys and dolls!!!
The programme went nice! I wish you all had seen it. I had to give a radio interview and two TV interviews were scheduled later!
Ohhhhhhhhhh! I'm so tired!!!
I don't have the energy to argue today!!! Just reached home at 11:30!!!
Goodbye for today!!!
Cheers!!!
-
Welcome back boiii!
okay cherio :D
-
You must also understand that the debating rules already exist. Did your experience not tell you that if you repeat it more than often, you give your opponents the impression that you think they are innately 'barbarous'? That's why I told you this...
Anyway, if you like writing it, it's your choice, none of my concern.
This one caught my eye first!!!
Alpha, Dear, it seems to me that you have got a negative mindset!!! See this post:
Yups, we should all keep that in mind; one of the nice things about the recent debates is all of em have been in a friendly full of and manner lol
lol i thought yourea new member until i saw your avatar
This reply was by OT13. See the difference between the two replies! I wrote something. OT13 interpreted it positively, stating that we all should keep this sentence ("No offence implied") in mind. And you thought that I am accusing everybody of being barbarious?!!!! Oh my Goodness!!! So much difference between positive and negative mindsets!!! I didn’t know this before!!!
Anyway, you must keep in mind that, again, not everybody thinks like you and me!!! Try interpreting everything positively, dear!!! And you will roll on perfectly!!!
Don't you think you are diverting from the topic a bit? I d id not develop my point in one sentence. So you should not argue based upon your conclusion after reading the first sentence. So, I would advise you to read the whole paragraph, carefully, think and then argue for your conclusions based on the WHOLE paragraph.
Crimes are products of our citizens. Criminals and victims are all citizens. The police, army, jailers, lawyers, and judges are also citizens. The law is formed by our citizens, for our citizens. The government plays a role in citizenship too. No, I don't think I am diverting from the topic. I did not develop my conclusion in the paragraph either. Leave alone sentences, every word you say makes a difference in a debate. If not to you, to me it does.
Don't you deny that dear!!! You said "As I read the first line itself ...." . This effectively proves that you have come to your conclusion after reading the first line and have not read the whole paragraph!!! Just to tell you a point, I usually develop an idea in a paragraph, be it in a debate or essay! So, please read the whole paragraph carefully, then come to conclusions, and argue upon the whole paragraph.
There are many reasons for which a criminal commits a crime. It is not necessarily limited to need, or any other simple thing. The point which you illustrated is your thinking. You must understand that not everybody thinks in a similar way. I would suggest you to consult a mental physician if you want to know more about why people commit crimes.
There may be thousands, billions of reasons, a crime is and remains a crime. Besides, I haven't stated any reason here. You must read properly. "Game" here refers to "crime", "killing". I haven't illustrated MY thinking. I used the first person to illustrate the basic reasoning of ANY rational individual. I would suggest you to read carefully.
You did illustrate your thinking, dear!!! The thing which you call 'rational' is your own thinking itself! The 'rational' thing is different for many people!
As an example, some of my friends become very sad and upset if their girlfriend leaves them for another boy!!! Seems like a nonsense idea to me, since it, strictly speaking, doesn't result in a personal loss or gain! She left a few days ago for India and will stay there for probably several years, and I didn't even care, except for saying goodbye!!! I don't even care if I get to see her again!!!
This idea seems 'rational' to me! However, when I tell this to a few of my 'heartbroken' romeo friends (as a consolation), they call me mad!!! I don’t have any emotions!!! And even says that I am not trustworthy!!! I am a betrayer!!! I am still a kid, though I am exactly six foot tall and weight 77 KGs!!!
It's left for you to decide, dear, which idea do you think is 'rational'?
Why do criminals try to escape from the police, then? There are many poor peoples in the world. Not everybody of them are criminals. Only a minority of them are. That is why I differentiated from LAW ABIDING AND LAW BREAKING CITIZENS!!!. Every poor people has needs, but only SOME OF THEM ARE COMMITING CRIMES!!! I think you should have understood this. Again, you must read my WHOLE paragraph and understand what I am trying to say, then argue.
So you accept it: criminals try to escape from the police. Point noted.
I never said every poor person is a criminal. I've used the word "trend" and a colon, meaning that I'm talking about those who follow this trend. You must pay attention to my words.
"Some of them are committing crimes", in capital. So you agree with me again. Second point noted.
I've talked about poverty and crime and the relationship existing between these two in my previous arguments in response to Omer's. Kindly refer to the fifth quote.
Yes, you were right that I agreed to your points. Of course they are right! There is no way to argue with those!!!
In your fifth quote:
It is also the government's duty to diminish poverty. Has it done it effectively so far? It is also the government's duty to ensure peace and harmony in the world. But I can still see people fighting and dying in masses. Most countries claim to be democracies, should they then rely entirely on the government? Should 'free' nations that do not hesitate to raise a voice be wholly dependent on the government? A government does not make a nation. A nation makes a government.
"Worst" standard of living?
How true, poverty is a plague one must have endured personally to be able to have even the slightest notion of its torment.
Even if prison food is of the poorest quality in the world, at least, AT LEAST the prisoners DO HAVE SOMETHING to eat. Can you compare a prisoner with the innocent child who has not even had the chance to see a few grains of rice for days? To the people who have endured famine and slept on an empty stomach for the most part of their lives? To you, to me, to us fortunate ones, prison might be a hell, but for them, it's a rescue. For them, it's heaven on Earth.
However, I strongly disagree to this! God (Allah) will always make way for everybody's needs and wants! That is what I believe and I have full faith in him!!! A poor person who doesn't have anything to eat, will find a way to eat!!! He could do odd jobs, pull rickshaws or any other thing! If he WANTS to eat, and have a strong DESIRE to eat or achieve something, he WILL find a way!!! God (Allah) WILL show him the way!!!
A man or woman who commits crimes to 'remain in prison' is mentally handicapped. And all of the participants of this debate (maybe except you!) will agree with me.
Oh, how did you guess that! Even if everybody else comes to agree with you, I will still be the first, last and only one standing at the extreme side.
How can you qualify people who are trying to fill up their stomachs even if that means they have to face most dire circumstances as "mentally handicapped"? Victims of pitiful conditions are "mentally handicapped"? Poverty-stricken people in search of a shelter are "mentally handicapped"? Did these people choose to be poor?
If you are unsure, please conduct a poll "Do people commit crimes to remain in prison?". In my previous point, I proved that poor peoples who have a DESIRE to do something do not commit crimes to 'remain in prison'. He will get his meal, anyhow. Please refer to that.
YOU are opposing YOURSELF!!! You said that Everybody are citizens of a country. Aren't criminals citizens too?
According to my theory, the serious offenders (like murderer, rapists or drug traffickers) will be KEPT BEHIND BARS! The cells will be supervised by honest police officers. The criminals won't get any chance to escape from the cells, regardless of how much they try. This will make our citizen's life safe for sure.
Yes, I said that and I know I said that. Criminals are citizens, I said it again in my first paragraph (and one more time here, makes it 4 times ). So what? If they are citizens, does it mean they have the right to deprive others of their rights? And if they have committed crimes, which right of theirs departs them from punishment? "Honest police officers". These days, we have more corrupt ones. "KEPT BEHIND BARS", which is costly.
Of course, they don't have the right to deprive others of their rights!
In Mauritius, you don't have honest police officers? Neither do we in Bangladesh!!! But I have travelled to some countries, among which Malaysia and Singapore are there. The native people of those two country (especially Singapore) are so proud to have a perfect legal system and honest police officers!!! When I wrote, I assumed that the legal system of that country is perfect, and without any dishonest police officers!!! It may not, at present, apply to your or my country, but it will apply to, for example, Malaysia and Singapore!!! Corruption is an exceptional case!!!
I think you have a misconception/misunderstanding about the definition of life imprisonment. I would suggest you to look it up in wikipedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment . In a debate, you should always know what exactly is your topic after all.
If I was unsure about the terminologies, I would not have done this debate at all.
Don't you deny that, dear!!! Your quote...
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 ) is NOT what I call leading a "safe" life. Maybe for you, "safe" has another meaning.
... proves that you have misunderstandings about the definition of life imprisonment. Again, I repeat, the world will not be 'infested' with offenders if serious offenders like murderers or rapists are imprisoned for life!!! Again, I would suggest you to look it up in wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment) !!!
After reading this, I actually thought you are joking . But you seem to be serious.
Well I have one advice for you: KISS not , but KEEP IT SIMPLE and STRAIGHTFORWARD! Also THINK this way!
I was both joking and serious.
Very well, thanks. In return, I have one advice for you too: MISS not , but MAKE IT SURE and SECURE. Also ACT this way.
I am sorry, dear, but that was a lame counter-attack!!! Your 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.
.... was too difficult for me to understand!!! So, I advised you this, dear!!! I do not understand, on what basis, are you advising me to MISS!!!
If you are confused about Opportunity costs, which I talked about earlier, you may wish to look it up too: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
On a side note: Try to be creative and innovative. You cannot do something out-of-ordinary on the competitive plane. You must make your own creative and innovative ideas and execute them!!! If you try to copy someone's ideas exactly and do not make any modifications, you will enter the competitive plane and will barely get something or lose!!!
"The $28.4 billion State operating cost, divided by the U.S. resident population, resulted in a nationwide average operating expenditure of $100 per person.
States spent $29.5 billion for prisons in 2001, about a $5½ billion increase from 1996, after adjusting for inflation
* Prison operations consumed about 77% of State correctional costs in FY 2001. The remaining 23% was spent on juvenile justice, probation and parole, community-based corrections, and central office administration.
* State correctional expenditures increased 145% in 2001 constant dollars from $15.6 billion in FY 1986 to $38.2 billion in FY 2001; prison expenditures increased 150% from $11.7 billion to $29.5 billion.
* Excluding capital spending, the average cost of operating State prisons in FY 2001 was $100 per U.S. resident, up from $90 in FY 1996.
* Outlays for new prison construction, renovations, equipment, and other capital account activities amounted to less than 4% of total prison expenditures in most States.
* Spending on medical care for State prisoners totaled $3.3 billion, or 12% of operating expenditures in 2001.
Correctional authorities spent $38.2 billion to maintain the Nation’s State correctional systems in fiscal year 2001, including $29.5 billion specifically for adult correctional facilities. Day-to-day operating expenses totaled $28.4 billion, and capital outlays for land, new building, and renovations, 1.1 billion."
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report
How many times should I tell EVERYBODY that expenditures, on any field are considered as a PERCENTAGE OF GDP. Why don't anybody understand this?!!! I'm tired of making everybody realize this fact!!! Again, if I have 100 billion $s, I won't mind donating $200m to these prisoners, will I? This 28.4 billion $ represents only 0.205% of the whole US GDP!!!
P.S. While reading your arguments, I've had a closer look to mine. It looks like I'm shouting... Honestly, I had not taken notice of that while typing... I was tired, moody and in a hurry, I let that slip by...
Stylish Executive, I apologize again... I never meant to be offensive, even if I did seem... I don't want this debate to turn into a personal one.
Omer, I'm sincerely sorry if you've been victimized too.
If I was offended, I wouldn't have chatted with you today!!! I hope this 'offence' related matter ends here!!!
Cheers!!!
-
Thank you for your participation. Thank you Omer, I appreciate it. :)
Thanks a lot!!!
This debate has reached its climax!!!
Cheers!!!
-
Okay boys and girls,
would we please stick to the topic?
both of you said you ain't offended, would we please leave it at that point?
-
Hey, I just counteracted her points in her previous reply!
-
Okay, lets just leave it at that
-
I have much to read...
Join in few days...
After am not busy, lol...
Keep going...;)
-
I have much to read...
Join in few days...
After am not busy, lol...
Keep going...;)
Looking back at my post, dear, I think I may have been a bit harsh. I sincerely apologize for that.
-
@Omer
Well now thats a value judgment, every one has his own :). I can understand how sometimes the family of the victims will be mad and enraged; will this be the case one year later? They lost this dear one (whoever he may be), nothing tangible is to be gained by killing the criminal. Some find that the sheer "serving of justice" is good enough, others think its not. For me personally, I believe the general rule is no, it ain't good enough. But thats not with each and every single case.
I agree it's a value judgement. For me, killing someone does not only affect one life but a whole family and innocent children who find their lives take an abrupt bend. Yours is a value judgement too. But I wouldn't go to the extent of saying that my value judgement is the general one. People have the right to think whatever they want to. Some voice out their need for equality, like I did, some want to be more lenient, like you. But the rest of the world does not really care--- we cannot generalize. That's why the law is here to make its own judgement, taking into account the human rights, of course.
Weeeeeell ::)
Not all murders are "first-class" (not sure aobut the term) murderers. A lot of murders are "self-defensive" or "unintentional". They deserve punishment, but not the maximum, don't you agree ::). And about the life-time ones, heres another way to look at it; death is an instant punishment, prison is not; death yields no tangible rewards not for the state nor the victim, prison can yield some sort of reward for the state (a lot of prisoners do some form of work while they're in jail), the victim
Defence attacks, as I said earlier, are given special treatment. People who commit crimes unknowingly also are special cases. Every case is not a special case. Here, I am talking about cold-blooded criminals, those who do not think twice before putting a full and final ban on someone's life. We also have contract killers or serial killers, who have killed several times, and the irony is that their killing activities continue even if they are kept confined in jails.
Death is an instant punishment--- the law is once and for all rid of the dangerous criminals. Prison is not--- this is a cause of 'worry' for the law and the nation: prisoners have to be kept alive, they have to be given food, they can always escape, our peoples (nations) will always live in fear and uncertainty. Again, there are MANY prisoners in jail. Capital punishment does not mean you kill each and every person who breaks the law. Capital punishment is for the high rated criminals ONLY. By the way, the victim is already dead, HOW would he yield any reward?
Because human wants and desires are insatiable--- no power on Earth can put an end to that. That's why I believe the best thing to do is to send that person OUT of this world, to permanently end the person's (who has desires harmful to the world) life, and ultimately, those harmful desires. If money is the reason, who would not want more money? If emotions like "love", "jealousy" and "revenge" lead to the crime, what is the guarantee that they will not lead to other crimes? Open both your eyes, do we lack reasons in this world? ;)
psycho hospitals are not exactly a walk thru the park now are they :D
They are neither a permanent booking to the cemetry now, are they? :D
Well thats what I am saying, sometimes love, jealousy, revenge; there will always be a moment, a "red zone" where a human will not be able to contain his emotions, when his brain is unable to discipline him; and ends up doing thing he normally wouldn't do, things he would regret the next day even if he wasn't punished.
Sorry, a moment? This "red zone" comes only once in a person's lifetime? Let's say it does, and is uncontrollable. Still, is it a reason to kill? We have a world pop. of 6 billion people. If everyone of us moves on this hypothesis, we'll soon be having a world pop. of nil. :P
Humans by nature get angry at different things, different occasions. If someone is momentarily unable to control his emotions, then that's HIS problem. Why should someone else pay his life for it? I don't find it reasonable that LIFE is a price to pay for incapability to control emotions, esp. when an innocent pays for it.
No, but whats the minumum life sentence do you get for killing, be it a "first-class" or a "third-class"? legal age is 18, lets assume you killed and served your sentence as a "third-class" killer; how old will you be by then? How much of your youth would have been wasted? Won't all of this come to the criminal's mind before he thinks about killing again? Yea i know I talked about the "red-zone" but it is possible if you have the right kind of pressure to control it.
Nid mentioned an argument about a politician. People like these would not think about the part of their life which would have been wasted should they commit crimes. For them, to get a bail is very easy. Fine, for others, all of what you said will come to their minds before they think about killing a second time. But the death penalty would come to their minds before they think about killing for the FIRST time. There is a difference between a first time and a second time in our arguments: I want to save the first victim too.
lol yea, on some cases the criminal's family can chip on, but thats only after they are sure he is absolutely and completely broke. Its not gonna bring back the victim, but it provides a tangible aid to the family of the victim. And remember, the criminal's family is not obliged to do so, its up to them at the end of the day.
If the criminal's family is not obliged to compensate, it is very unlikely that they will give out so much money.
Loss of life v/s Loss of years of life
I am repeatedly talking about the "loss of life" of the victim, and its impact on his family, esp. children, if ever there are. Do not take "loss of life" to be mere words. Visualize them, try to dig for the meaning of my words in real life situations. You should find that the cost is equal to infinity.
You said it yourself, SAME amount, the compensation in the top two cases is enough to um, compensate (can't think of another word :D) for the loss. The compensation "undoes" the crime, is this the case with the third case? I never said that the money is enough compensation, but I do know that it gives a tangible gain for the family of the victim, killing the criminal does not give any tangible benefit to them
"Account" can be a good synonym. :D
Oh sorry, value can be the same, but no compensation "undoes" any crime. Money does not bring back a hand cut during an accident at work. Money just avoids complicated legal procedures that are usually cost inefficient. Money avoids the business from being sued. It avoids reputation damage. At the bottom line, money tells the victim to "SHUT UP". :P
This "tangible gain" for the family, which happens rarely, is NOT equal to what the family has lost: a member. While killing the criminal might have prevented this loss in the first place. Again here, money is being used as a medium to hide what is being told to the victim's family: "SHUT UP". Money is the barrier obstructing their search for justice.
Agreed on pretty much the entire paragraph :)
True, a lot of governments are not doing what they are supposed to, but this is not a reason to raise the responsibility off it, actually we should press on them even more
"A govt. does not make a nation. A nation makes a govt."
I can't find better words to explain what I mean...;) A govt. solely cannot make a big difference.
Yes, I guess you can say it is synonymous with slavery. Sure the world is gonna go crazy "ooh no! slavery! tyrant! kill him!" but hey, slavery was something forced upon people who did not deserve it. My idea is more of a punishment, they practically "asked for it"
No, the government shouldnt get them capital either; the primary aim of this idea is to punish more than to raise the a country's GDP. Our great-great-great grandparents didn't have tractors now or harvesters now did they, but they still managed to farm.
Your idea must differentiate between high rated criminals and petty ones.
Um, get extra security?
For whom? The criminals? Or the guards? :D
Again, my failure to express my point properly; what i am trying to say is, justice, as "fair" as it is, is not necessarily always the "right" choice. best way I can express it (and i'm sure you're sick of me saying it agin and again) is the "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" thingy :D
I understood what you mean... But justice has to be fair, that's why the law is represented as a blindfolded dummy.
This is not the primary target, punishment is.
My target is punishment too.
True, but as i mentioned somewhere earlier, if my plan is to be followed, then the "prisoner yield" is not supposed to be available for the public market. it could be given to chairty, like maybe for the poor or the orphans, or it could also be given to the farmers.
As I also mentioned earlier, your project must diff. between the high rated and low rated criminals.
True, but killing the criminal will not get the lost life back either
Nor will any compensation.
Again, it is not equal, but it goes a long way
While the way representing the loss of life goes till infinity...
Last part i agree, first part, nopes.
LOL, that was a bit too much of philosophy on my part. ;D
Anyway, my first part meant:
Life is everything in life. "Everything" goes far beyond material possessions, relations and emotions. "Everything" cannot be described in words, just like "life" cannot be. :)
-
@Borakk
This one caught my eye first!!!
Alpha, Dear, it seems to me that you have got a negative mindset!!! See this post:
Quote
Yups, we should all keep that in mind; one of the nice things about the recent debates is all of em have been in a friendly full of and manner lol
lol i thought yourea new member until i saw your avatar
This reply was by OT13. See the difference between the two replies! I wrote something. OT13 interpreted it positively, stating that we all should keep this sentence ("No offence implied") in mind. And you thought that I am accusing everybody of being barbarious?!!!! Oh my Goodness!!! So much difference between positive and negative mindsets!!! I didn’t know this before!!!
Anyway, you must keep in mind that, again, not everybody thinks like you and me!!! Try interpreting everything positively, dear!!! And you will roll on perfectly!!!
Primo, it's not in my habits to dictate what others should be thinking about me. Everybody has freedom of opinion. I respect it. Their freedom does not affect my stay in this world.
Secondo, a book is not judged by its cover. I find your comparison childish (no offence), leave it to the kids. Our age group is moving to maturity.
And tertio, this debate is not on "Alpha's mindset", nobody knows better what is in my mind. We are talking about "capital punishment and life imprisonment".
Don't you deny that dear!!! You said "As I read the first line itself ...." . This effectively proves that you have come to your conclusion after reading the first line and have not read the whole paragraph!!! Just to tell you a point, I usually develop an idea in a paragraph, be it in a debate or essay! So, please read the whole paragraph carefully, then come to conclusions, and argue upon the whole paragraph.
"As I read your first line itself, I got surprised." I did not jump to my conclusion, else I would have stopped there itself. You've not taken into consideration the main part of my sentence. That's why I said: "MISS not".
You did illustrate your thinking, dear!!! The thing which you call 'rational' is your own thinking itself! The 'rational' thing is different for many people!
Between choosing to commit a crime and take the risk, and commit no crime and take no risk, I don't think that there should be any unclear reasons to justify the 'rational' here. I don't think that my 'rational' will be different from the majority.
As an example, some of my friends become very sad and upset if their girlfriend leaves them for another boy!!! Seems like a nonsense idea to me, since it, strictly speaking, doesn't result in a personal loss or gain! She left a few days ago for India and will stay there for probably several years, and I didn't even care, except for saying goodbye!!! I don't even care if I get to see her again!!!
This idea seems 'rational' to me! However, when I tell this to a few of my 'heartbroken' romeo friends (as a consolation), they call me mad!!! I don’t have any emotions!!! And even says that I am not trustworthy!!! I am a betrayer!!! I am still a kid, though I am exactly six foot tall and weight 77 KGs!!!
It's left for you to decide, dear, which idea do you think is 'rational'?
To me, both are not. Dwelling in the past does not help to solve problems. But love is not a trial and error process either. To consider yourself mature enough to venture into it when actually you are not is not the
first sign of maturity.
However, I strongly disagree to this! God (Allah) will always make way for everybody's needs and wants! That is what I believe and I have full faith in him!!! A poor person who doesn't have anything to eat, will find a way to eat!!! He could do odd jobs, pull rickshaws or any other thing! If he WANTS to eat, and have a strong DESIRE to eat or achieve something, he WILL find a way!!! God (Allah) WILL show him the way!!!
If he could, he would. By the way, we are not supposed to be discussing about faith. I am, you are, but every one is not a Muslim. Try to find a more valid argument.
If you are unsure, please conduct a poll "Do people commit crimes to remain in prison?". In my previous point, I proved that poor peoples who have a DESIRE to do something do not commit crimes to 'remain in prison'. He will get his meal, anyhow. Please refer to that.
Do all*** people commit crimes to remain in prison?
Again, do not miss parts of my arguments...
Of course, they don't have the right to deprive others of their rights!
In Mauritius, you don't have honest police officers? Neither do we in Bangladesh!!! But I have travelled to some countries, among which Malaysia and Singapore are there. The native people of those two country (especially Singapore) are so proud to have a perfect legal system and honest police officers!!! When I wrote, I assumed that the legal system of that country is perfect, and without any dishonest police officers!!! It may not, at present, apply to your or my country, but it will apply to, for example, Malaysia and Singapore!!! Corruption is an exceptional case!!!
Every country is not 'perfect', news.
Don't you deny that, dear!!! Your quote...
Quote
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 ) is NOT what I call leading a "safe" life. Maybe for you, "safe" has another meaning.
... proves that you have misunderstandings about the definition of life imprisonment. Again, I repeat, the world will not be 'infested' with offenders if serious offenders like murderers or rapists are imprisoned for life!!! Again, I would suggest you to look it up in wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment !!!
Not all of them are imprisoned for life... Not all. It depends more on the judicial system of the country than on wikipedia.
I am sorry, dear, but that was a lame counter-attack!!! Your quote ....
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.
.... was too difficult for me to understand!!! So, I advised you this, dear!!! I do not understand, on what basis, are you advising me to MISS!!!
And look who's going to ask for creativity below...
Okay, I'll make it clear. It was just a lil bit of Maths. ;)
IDeal, no ID, remove ID, remains "eal".
R pushes ID, now add R, to get "Real".
It was only to add something new to the debate...
The ideal and the real do not coexist, in general terms.
On a side note: Try to be creative and innovative. You cannot do something out-of-ordinary on the competitive plane. You must make your own creative and innovative ideas and execute them!!! If you try to copy someone's ideas exactly and do not make any modifications, you will enter the competitive plane and will barely get something or lose!!!
Well, I tried to be 'creative'... And you saw how well it worked. I don't understand what more I can do if my opponent does not understand what a "Tit for Tat" is.
How many times should I tell EVERYBODY that expenditures, on any field are considered as a PERCENTAGE OF GDP. Why don't anybody understand this?!!! I'm tired of making everybody realize this fact!!! Again, if I have 100 billion $s, I won't mind donating $200m to these prisoners, will I? This 28.4 billion $ represents only 0.205% of the whole US GDP!!!
Why don't you understand the diff. between a percentage and a sum? It seems to me that you have not read what I quoted. You are basing your % fig. on America's GDP, a highly developed country. 10% of $ 100 is $ 10. While 10% of $ 1 000 000 is $ 100 000. Percentage is the same, but with a VAST difference in amount.
This is a value judgement, your rational.
Looking back at my post, dear, I think I may have been a bit harsh. I sincerely apologize for that.
No worries. :)
Life is too short... If we keep minding everything, we will never have time to appreciate anything.
Go on, you are good.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P.S. I haven't given up... Was just taken up these past few days. ::) My apologies for the delay.
-
Alpha, I am really very very sorry, for taking this debate personally. *My Apologies*.
Lets leave all personal issues here. Therefore, I will not be replying to any personal issues which I discussed and you replied.
I'm not quitting and will get back with an answer, maybe today itself!
e-debating is FUN!!!
Take Care!
Till then, Bye!
-
We're moving ahead in time...
Leaving everything behind...:)
-
Hi ~Alpha,
I have changed my debating style. I don’t like quoting long texts. ‘Your assumption’ summarizes your writings in previous context. ‘The FACT’ represents my arguments ;) .
Your assumption: The death penalty deters crime.
The FACT: Wrong, it only deters crime in countries where it's carried out quickly and absolutely. In some countries if you are convicted of murder, you are taken outside and executed publicly, usually within 24 hours. This deters serious criminals who commit crimes, for sure. However, people of developed nations will never stand for this. We Bangladeshis do not support this. It is too cruel and inhumane for us. I don’t think Mauritians will like it too. So, this method of execution will not be employed by most countries, due to public opposition. Therefore, this assumption is made unrealistic.
Your assumption: Keeping behind bars is costly. Too much money is spent on unproductive prisoners. We have to pay prison guards, and give food to prisoners. We citizens have to pay tax money to keep them alive. This is gross. So, they should be executed, so that we can spend the money on more productive purposes.
The FACT: Unfortunately, it costs dramatically more to kill those same criminals. The typical death penalty conviction must go through several levels of appeal. All these appeals must be heard by the courts in virtually every case. Attorneys and solicitors are paid dramatically more than prison guards. One prison guard is responsible for several prisoners, where one prisoner on death row typically employs several attorneys and legal staff for many years, all while still using your tax money in prison. Life sentences are rarely appealed. The typical life span in prison is about two dozen years. Interestingly, many of the most violent prisoners get murdered in prison.
Another unfortunate fact that I have to mention is that, though I tried my best to make you understand that it is the percentage of GDP which counts, still you are not agreeing with me. Just have a look at Bloomberg or any other business channel. Or have a look at any advanced economics book or even newspapers. When government expenditures are mentioned, the percentage of GDP that they occupy is given more importance, rather than the sum or its opportunity costs.
Best of luck! (for criticizing my arguments ;) !!!)
Cheers!
-
any plans to think something other than death?
-
any plans to think something other than death?
I am loving this debate...Let it go on :P
-
I love e-debating, especially when ~Alpha opposes me!
-
alpha, debate on mine topics which were opened in the debate section long time ago and which received no replies...
i will oppose u even if u were right :P
lets give a try
-
Sgvaibhab, please let me win this debate against Alpha first ;) . After that, both Alpha and I will debate against you ;) . Right now I am waiting in tenterhooks for her reply. I really like debating with her!
-
There is no winner in a debate
Not possible
-
Last year, our school won a debate tournament with mastermind school.
Why not in a forum?!
-
Last year, our school won a debate tournament with mastermind school.
Why not in a forum?!
A debate cannot possibly be won, because there is a point put forth from either sides...
In competitions, they see which one is better presented
There is no this- side- of- the-argument is correct...
There ain't nothing wrong or right in a debate...
Debates can come to a conclusion but with an opportunity cost ::)
I jst realized we're off topic
I am waiting for alpha to reply too....Interesting debate
-
Hi nid404,
Aaaah, we will just leave it at that!
For now, I am waiting to see what our friend, ~Alpha can come up with!
-
:o :o :o I didn't know there was so much gossiping about me. :P
Now, understand why Borakk had to remind me about the debate. :D
Hey, by the way, there is no Oscar prize for beating me. You won't get a Nobel prize either. Think more about debating only. :P
@Sgvaibhav
any plans to think something other than death?
Other than life, you mean? ;)
alpha, debate on mine topics which were opened in the debate section long time ago and which received no replies...
i will oppose u even if u were right :P
lets give a try
Hey, am quoting yes, but am not debating yet... I missed the posts by lots.
Sure, we're gonna give it a try some day... When am over with this one. ;D (Hope you have patience.)
In the meantime, why don't you just hop in this debate?
By the way, what's that in your signature? You really did add that as a tail to your posts? I can't believe. :P :D :D
@Nid
:P Thanks for the help. You practically vanished. Hey, brought you popcorn! :P :D
You're right about "There is no winner". I had said this earlier. ::) A debate, if done properly by both participants, must end neutrally. There is nothing 100% advantageous or 100% disadvantageous.
In competitions, they win only because there must be a winning team, else, no one would be motivated to enter in 'verbal fights'. LOL
@Borakk
"especially when ~Alpha opposes me"... Goodness, it's supposed to be a compliment? :P :D
Sgvaibhab, please let me win this debate against Alpha first ;) . After that, both Alpha and I will debate against you ;) . Right now I am waiting in tenterhooks for her reply. I really like debating with her!
Okay fine, it's a critical compliment: you like debating with me cause you're waiting for the day you will finally win. :P :P
Boy, what I learned with all the debates I did: victory is earned, not claimed. Over confidence is the greatest barrier in the path leading to victory.
Thank you for the reminder. Today, I have a list of jobs. You remember, I had left? Well, that's why am taken up actually, gotta complete everything that was not done in my absence. Workload increased. Nobody did my part of work. :(
Anyway, I'll make it my second obligation. If not today, tomorrow. In the meantime, you may go on. No need to stop cause of me.
Good Luck (to myself...? :P)! ;)
By the way, join in the site I gave you. I'm gonna start debating there also.
Correction: I'm gonna have to start debating there also. ;D
You are all invited. :)
-
Hi Alpha,
I am sorry i couldnt join that website of yours. I will do it soon maybe today itself.
Maybe i can help you over there!
Cheers!
-
Hey am tired today.... :'(
Tomorrow, I have to go out...
Do not mind my delay... Please, continue in my absence.
Borakk, yup, that's right, I need help....Hehehe Am dead tired.
Allez, have a nice time.
-
Hello Borakk :)
I have changed my debating style. I don’t like quoting long texts. ‘Your assumption’ summarizes your writings in previous context. ‘The FACT’ represents my arguments ;) .
Your new style is arbitrary. You could have used "Alpha's arguments" instead, or "pros", "cons"... My posts were not "assumptions", they were FACTS. What, was I playing doll house all this time? :P
Whatever, I'll stick to the 'traditional' method, I'm quoting.
By the way, the bullet-like icon you see below "Change colour" is used for quoting.
The FACT: Wrong, it only deters crime in countries where it's carried out quickly and absolutely. In some countries if you are convicted of murder, you are taken outside and executed publicly, usually within 24 hours. This deters serious criminals who commit crimes, for sure. However, people of developed nations will never stand for this. We Bangladeshis do not support this. It is too cruel and inhumane for us. I don’t think Mauritians will like it too. So, this method of execution will not be employed by most countries, due to public opposition. Therefore, this assumption is made unrealistic.
Just a small simple question: when did I say that criminals should be executed on public roads or streets?
Yes, I'm advocating capital punishment, but I haven't dictated any procedures. Criminals can be killed in different ways: hanging, execution, poison, etc. The public execution that you are talking about mostly happens in Arabia, not in Bangladesh or in Mauritius. You Bangladeshis do not support this, that makes absolutely no difference to the Arabian King. Every country suits itself. (Therefore, your "FACT" is made unrealistic.)
"It is too cruel and inhumane"--- here I would like to poke my nose a lil bit. It is too cruel and inhumane to kill a criminal in public, to be mentioned, lawfully and judgmentally? Is it humane to 'hunt' an innocent with a samurai in public? Where does your 'citizenship' go then when the victims are running in the streets all bloody with parts of their bodies broken?
"This deters serious criminals who commit crimes, for sure." Okay, you agreed. Good then, I will not have to explain my 'rational' again. ;)
The FACT: Unfortunately, it costs dramatically more to kill those same criminals. The typical death penalty conviction must go through several levels of appeal. All these appeals must be heard by the courts in virtually every case. Attorneys and solicitors are paid dramatically more than prison guards. One prison guard is responsible for several prisoners, where one prisoner on death row typically employs several attorneys and legal staff for many years, all while still using your tax money in prison. Life sentences are rarely appealed. The typical life span in prison is about two dozen years. Interestingly, many of the most violent prisoners get murdered in prison.
You just mentioned above that public execution is usually carried out within 24 hours. And you mentioned here the typical lifespan in prison is about 24 years (2 dozen). The difference between hours and years is not small, is it? 24 hours make a day. One common year consists of 365 days. Supposing a day per prisoner costs $ 1. The ratio, for the time spent in prison after trial, would look somehow like this:
Death penalty : Life imprisonment
1 : 8766
Now countries have a choice: sensitive hearts or sensitive pockets.
"Attorneys and solicitors are paid dramatically more than prison guards." So, does it mean that a criminal's case is permanently closed if he is sentenced to life imprisonment? Why are you comparing the cost to only the earnings of prison guards? What about food, repairs and maintenance costs of prison cells, attorneys and solicitors paid dramatically to get the criminals in and out repeatedly, etc? Think about the number of crimes that can be prevented if the death penalty is implemented, and the cost that can be saved therein.
Besides, I had also mentioned about poor, desperate people trying to get themselves a place in jails when they cannot find a place in our routine world. Favouring life imprisonment is going to spread this 'infection'. Treating this 'infection' is going to be more costly even.
"Many of the most violent prisoners get murdered in prison."
Or is it the other way around? Many violent prisoners murder the inferior ones. You raise another point for me: keeping violent criminals in prison is a danger to the other prisoners.
Another unfortunate fact that I have to mention is that, though I tried my best to make you understand that it is the percentage of GDP which counts, still you are not agreeing with me. Just have a look at Bloomberg or any other business channel. Or have a look at any advanced economics book or even newspapers. When government expenditures are mentioned, the percentage of GDP that they occupy is given more importance, rather than the sum or its opportunity costs.
FYI, I am an Economics and Business Studies student myself. And I know why figures are compared using the percentage method. What I am trying to tell you since a long time: get OUT of your books and face the harsh reality. To compare figures using the percentage method is more of politics than business. These comparisons play with the psychology of citizens, of nations. A sum is compared to the GDP to make it seem much minor than it actually is.
If, as you say, the money spent on prisons is not a big deal for America, then why not give this money to under-developed countries as grants? Sure, $ 28.4 billion, which is not a big deal to America, makes a BIG difference to the lives of the poor.
Again, I will talk about justice and social security, briefly this time. ;)
"Iron cuts iron" (loha lohe ko kaatta hain :D)
Get rid of weeds because plants and flowers need to blossom in a place safe for them.
Fortunately, the death penalty has not been abolished by some countries. Or else, today we would still be having utterly dangerous criminals like Saddam Hussein (just an example, no offence meant) alive. And millions of people would be losing their lives because of ONE man.
Best of luck! (for criticizing my arguments ;)!!!)
I'm not a fan of luck. ;) If you didn't know, well now you do. Nevertheless, thank you.
P.S. I like debating with you too. Your enthusiasm is good. Hehe, within limits*. ;D
P.P.S. My apologies, kept you waiting. Had a peak period.
-
When we are debating in this topic I am more interested in politics since it concerns the whole country, than business.
By the way, your arguements looked like a bit like superficial to me this time.
-
When we are debating in this topic I am more interested in politics since it concerns the whole country, than business.
By the way, your arguements looked like a bit like superficial to me this time.
That's what you say every time. :P And when it's your turn...
I prefer shut my mouth, and not to retaliate. :-X :P Would not be "me".
-
Yeah thats better.
By the way, reading your reply, I can sense your fear of failure from here.
-
:P :D
I don't fear "failure"... Your senses are not working properly, have a check. :P
-
You are very well aware and self conscious of the fact that you are on the verge of losing this debate, aren't you? Just admit it.
If you don't I will reply to your arguements and I am pleased to assure you, you will be busted.
-
You are very well aware and self conscious of the fact that you are on the verge of losing this debate, aren't you? Just admit it.
If you don't I will reply to your arguements and I am pleased to assure you, you will be busted.
Oh la!
Better get them clear, wrong methods:
1) Degrading the posts of your opponents does not assign weight to your own.
2) You think too much about "winning" and completely forget the essential: "debating".
I am waiting for your reply. You must have got mine by now.
-
Oh la!
Better get them clear, wrong methods:
1) Degrading the posts of your opponents does not assign weight to your own.
2) You think too much about "winning" and completely forget the essential: "debating".
Agreed
Your ideology is incorrect stylish...u can never win a debate.
-
I think it should be up to the person...
Dying may seem horribly shocking - yet I think any sane person looking upon long-term consequences may prefer to die quick rather than spend a locked up, dark dark life.
On the other hand, he may just get lucky and break out of prison..hmm..
-
Sorry everybody I am at present a little busy with my studies. School started from today.
@Alpha:
You may have noticed that a few days ago, nid404 was debating with me. She was replying to my arguements and I was debating perfectly on my side too. But lately, she was sacred of me -sacred of getting busted. So she stopped replying to my arguements with her. All in all, she surrendered the debate.
I would call her A VERY WISE LADY to have considered this, BECAUSE she knew she would have got busted if she continued arguing with me. That is, she had foreseen the consequences of her actions. Therefore, I would recommend you to consider the same thing - Surrender before getting busted! ;)
-
@ Angel
I would have agreed to your opinion if the victim was given a choice too.
Thank you for joining in. :)
Keep it up ;)!
@ Borakk
My stamina is not so weak that it's going to be scared by, again, your silly comparisons. (Sorry for my frankness).
I would call her A VERY WISE LADY to have considered this, BECAUSE she knew she would have got busted if she continued arguing with me. That is, she had foreseen the consequences of her actions.
Well, let's make it clear: Nid is Nid and Alpha is Alpha.
I have a recommendation for you too: drop the "bragging" and start the "debating".
P.S. You can take your time, I'm not in a hurry. School just started for me too...
-
Alpha: in your first paragraph, you said that you do not support executing criminals on streets. Now I have a question for you too "Which method of execution would you prefer if death penalty is implemented?" Answer in a clear cut way. Either executing on streets or the 'normal' process of court. It seems to me you support the court procedures, but I need confirmation before proceeding.
I could have easily argued with other arguements too. But I need to know the answer of this question first to do so. On the other hand, I wouldn't give away my triumph card so soon, will I? And sweetie, you will soon get to know who is silly and who is not :) . Merely finding loopholes in my arguements does not necessarily make you smart. :-)
You have a great stamina? FYI I have a great persistence. 'Stamina' is more physical than mental. Winning a Debate does not require physical strength. AND winning or getting ANYTHING I want is ALL I care about, WHATEVER methods, right or wrong, I may have to apply. So, Before clicking the post button, check if your writing makes some sense.
You are not a fan of luck? Me neither! So, I wish you a bad luck this time. Doesn't make any difference does it, sweetie? :)
Worst of Luck!!! :)
-
Alpha: in your first paragraph, you said that you do not support executing criminals on streets. Now I have a question for you too "Which method of execution would you prefer if death penalty is implemented?" Answer in a clear cut way. Either executing on streets or the 'normal' process of court. It seems to me you support the court procedures, but I need confirmation before proceeding.
I said it already, I will not judge. It is up to the country to decide. It is up to their government.
I could have easily argued with other arguements too. But I need to know the answer of this question first to do so. On the other hand, I wouldn't give away my triumph card so soon, will I? And sweetie, you will soon get to know who is silly and who is not Smiley . Merely finding loopholes in my arguements does not necessarily make you smart. :-)
Merely bragging does not make you smart either. I don't think am going to waste my time with your bragging and all. For the last time, if you have arguments, just start them right away and spare us the "bragging" part, we are not all sitting idle.
By the way, we write arguments*.
You have a great stamina? FYI I have a great persistence. 'Stamina' is more physical than mental. Winning a Debate does not require physical strength. AND winning or getting ANYTHING I want is ALL I care about, WHATEVER methods, right or wrong, I may have to apply. So, Before clicking the post button, check if your writing makes some sense.
If you don't know the very most essence of debating, it doesn't make sense to debate then. You SHOULD be knowing that. Check your definition of "stamina". It also refers to the capability to endure things mentally for a long time, in context, to endure your blabla for all this while. If I used it, I know why I used it. Seems to me like you don't. Were it someone new, I would have urged an opponent vote. Borakk, debate, and debate correctly.
Your persistence is baseless, in case you don't know. If you win, it's going to be through the RIGHT and CORRECT methods, through your arguments, NOT your stupid disguised warnings, threats, comparisons, whatever. Sorry, have bad news for you, you are not going to win with your "WHATEVER" methods, I will henceforth ignore all the stupidities which are not supposed to be in a debate.
You are not a fan of luck? Me neither! So, I wish you a bad luck this time. Doesn't make any difference does it, sweetie?
If it makes no difference, and you know it doesn't, then I think it's better to "shut up".
And since you like comparisons so much... Unlike you, I do have the courage to bear defeat. :)
-
So, its up to the country. They will choose either hanging mercilessly within 24 hours or normal process of court hearing.
First, lets suppose they choose that merciless procedure. In this case, their expenditure is negligible. BUT the fact remains that this method is not realistic for every country. So, in case you havent noticed your ratio will only apply to a few arabian countries not for the majority. Because people of most other countries will not support this method.
In case a country choose court proceedings, the real problem arises here.
I can guess that you have absolutely no idea how much a mere visit to a lawyer costs. Take this as an example in real life.
One of my family members had an extortion case filed against him. The normal penalty for this is imprisonment for 12 years. This was back in 2008. At present the court has given the verdict of no punishment. But his expenditures till now on lawyers and others were 600000 tk or 8000 usd. This is excluding the bribes he had to pay.
Now suppose the penalty was death and his crime have been proved. In this case, he would have tried to save himself in any way possible. He would have appealed many times in the court. If his expenditure for one year is this much, imagine if the case dragged on for 5 years due to appeal.
Thus your expenditure would be greater on the death side. And most hardcore criminals are usually rich.
The fact remains that expenditures are greater on the death side compared to life imprisonment.
If a criminal gets life imprisonment penalty he is less likely to appeal. Thus the expenditures get lower. But in death sentence, he would certainly appeal and expenditures get higher due to this. And higher than life imprisonment.
Oh sweetie, I am sorry reality has been so harsh to you. Its been pretty easy for me though. It depends on how you take it. Easy for those who KISS. Difficult for those who are keen on making it difficult.
You were saying something about America donating 28 billion to poor countries. This is a very unrealistic assumption. America would never donate this because this would go against its interest. If it does, it will surely demand something in return or pursue its objectives indirectly which YOU are not capable of understanding at this level. This is logical. Because I would do the same if I was in control of US.
I take business studies, ict, economics and computing in A level.
Your assumption about the percentage figure is thus a mere assumption. Its not reality.
-
You may have noticed that a few days ago, nid404 was debating with me. She was replying to my arguements and I was debating perfectly on my side too. But lately, she was sacred of me -sacred of getting busted. So she stopped replying to my arguements with her. All in all, she surrendered the debate.
I would call her A VERY WISE LADY to have considered this, BECAUSE she knew she would have got busted if she continued arguing with me. That is, she had foreseen the consequences of her actions. Therefore, I would recommend you to consider the same thing - Surrender before getting busted!
Im sorry executive, you can get all stylish if you want - but this attitude doesnt hold well here.
Nid will have her reasons - this is not debating spirit!
I'd greatly appreciate it if you abstain from such pride and wool headed ness next time.
Thank You.
Oh and Alpha, SHUT UP is not appreciated either.
-
You may have noticed that a few days ago, nid404 was debating with me. She was replying to my arguements and I was debating perfectly on my side too. But lately, she was sacred of me -sacred of getting busted. So she stopped replying to my arguements with her. All in all, she surrendered the debate.
I would call her A VERY WISE LADY to have considered this, BECAUSE she knew she would have got busted if she continued arguing with me. That is, she had foreseen the consequences of her actions. Therefore, I would recommend you to consider the same thing - Surrender before getting busted!
Im sorry executive, you can get all stylish if you want - but this attitude doesnt hold well here.
Nid will have her reasons - this is not debating spirit!
I'd greatly appreciate it if you abstain from such pride and wool headed ness next time.
Thank You.
Oh and Alpha, SHUT UP is not appreciated either.
My apologies, I got offended too, I admit. That's why used this. :-X
Besides, I used it between inverted commas... meaning, it was a closure to luck's entry in the DP.
-
You may have noticed that a few days ago, nid404 was debating with me. She was replying to my arguements and I was debating perfectly on my side too. But lately, she was sacred of me -sacred of getting busted. So she stopped replying to my arguements with her. All in all, she surrendered the debate.
I would call her A VERY WISE LADY to have considered this, BECAUSE she knew she would have got busted if she continued arguing with me. That is, she had foreseen the consequences of her actions. Therefore, I would recommend you to consider the same thing - Surrender before getting busted!
Im sorry executive, you can get all stylish if you want - but this attitude doesnt hold well here.
Nid will have her reasons - this is not debating spirit!
I'd greatly appreciate it if you abstain from such pride and wool headed ness next time.
Thank You.
Oh and Alpha, SHUT UP is not appreciated either.
stylish
I don't always got thru the debate section...and i don't debate one on one....I just put forth my points and retaliate those who r against....
& ur under the wrong impression that i was e-debating one on one wid u...point 1
and point 2 there is no reason i have to be scared of u....that was a lame statement......no offence
Please give me the links to ur posts if there r any addressed to me in particular...I shall retaliate when i get time...
My first priority is my studies, 2nd to help others on the forum and then entertainment for myself(debatin included)
-
Angell quoted what Stylish said... In case you haven't noticed. ;)
I didn't get u sorry...
Quoted in da sense, like used her points or went against them....She ws on the fence By the way...so im confused...
I'll wait for angell to point out what she wants me to deny....
-
Oh now I get it......angell quoted stylish's words for me....i thought that ws angell...and ws shocked
lol....sorry and thanks angell
but i don't see stylish's post newhere....tho it doesn't matter :P
-
Angell should have quoted it... would have been easier to notice. I thought it was her too, then recognized Borakk's arguments.
It's up, you'll find it. Pg 6. ;)
-
*yawns*
I know i can't do so and I won't do it, but yall have no idea how tempted i am to just lock this topic
I am trying to be as impartial as possible (as for me being a part of the debate, count me out, i already gave my point of view)
but comon Borakk, a little bit more respect to your "opponents"? and everyone needs to remember you do NOT have to retaliate, EACH AND EVERY single point your "opponent" gives; this is not a tug-of-war, its a freakin debate, it doesn't have to end with one team winning and the other losing ;)
-
i made d same point earlier on.....but yet agn some ppl denied it....wanted to argue nd win :p
-
death penalty is the best ,criminals will thinking twice before they commit crime ,or more advantage population rate decreases which is needed in most over populated area as they ar the danger to community and we should cut their roots ,if a person chooses the crime path he can never come back or change ,one way or another will be forced to go back so wat the advantage of giving him second chance or else a chance to do more crime let u analysis .
however if we''ll give him life imprisonment ,then in most cases of big criminals its their second home ,police ar afraid of him or they serve him and he is the prince of the jail,in one survey conducted it was proved that some criminals continue their activities even if they ar in jail it doesn't matter to them .or the other option they bribe the police officers or they escape , hearing all these things other criminals never get affraid and they continue rulling this world.
-
So, its up to the country. They will choose either hanging mercilessly within 24 hours or normal process of court hearing.
First, lets suppose they choose that merciless procedure. In this case, their expenditure is negligible. BUT the fact remains that this method is not realistic for every country. So, in case you havent noticed your ratio will only apply to a few arabian countries not for the majority. Because people of most other countries will not support this method.
In case a country choose court proceedings, the real problem arises here.
Yes, it’s up to the country. Whatever method the countries choose, it’s THEIR own preference. And the FACT is that every method has its own advantages and costs.
The execution within 24 hours policy is a cost effective, swift and quick punishment. The normal court hearing process is done to ensure to the maximum that innocents are not punished. Appeals to courts are deliberately extended for death penalty cases to make sure that innocents are not put to death. And these appeals are provided by the law itself. Logically court appeals are not extended for life imprisonment causes because THIS would be too cost inefficient, considering the fact that basic facilities are provided to these criminals. In general, life imprisonment cases are allowed only one appeal. All of this to tell you that many more innocents tend to be condemned to punishment in life imprisonment supporting countries.
Now to the facts, figures and historical examples…
Your research states that the DP (Death Penalty) cases cost dramatically more than the LI (Life Imprisonment) cases. This is because of loopholes in comparison. TIME Magazine’s research found that the average cell cost is $ 24 000/yr and the maximum security cell cost is $ 75 000/yr. DP opposers claim that DP should be replaced by LI. Therefore, any cost calculations should be based specifically on cell costs for criminals who have committed the exact same category of offence. In other words, cost comparisons are valid only if you compare the costs of LI equivalent DP cases to the cost of DP cases. LI equivalent DP cases would reasonably be occupying cells with the maximum security, the most expensive ones, that is $ 75 000/yr (while the figure taken is $ 34 200/yr). Comparisons are improper because the cost of all LI cases are compared to DP cases (which is unrealistically misleading) when only the DP equivalent LI cases are relevant.
DP equivalent LI cases include extremely heinous crimes such as murder, drug trafficking and high treason.
You say DP cases reside mainly in appeal costs. The fact is that life without parole (temporary or permanent release on the promise of good behavior, before the expiry date of a sentence) prisoners make the same appeals and should be considered to bear the same costs. Justice for All estimates that life without parole cases will cost $ 1.2 million- $ 3.6 million more than equivalent DP cases.
“The appeals do play a significant part in the fees, but the majority of it is the chemicals required for the termination and the preparation. Another major part of the expenses is paying the men who have the unfortunate duty of pulling the plug,” a Criminal Justice major says.
As illustrated above, the method plays a big role in the costs for DP cases. That’s another loophole when comparing percentages. Cheap executions? Go for firing squads. You’ll easily find many volunteers who would provide their own guns and ammunition. Or hang them and re-use the rope. 3 states in America allow firing squad and 2 states allow hanging.
Here, I would like to cite.
Edwin Sutherland, PhD, late President of the American Sociological Society, and Donald R. Cressey, PhD, late Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in the 1974 revised edition of their book titled Criminology, wrote:
"[The] cost is not inherent in the [death] penalty, but imposed by judges. It is not cheaper to keep a criminal confined, because most of the time he will appeal just as much causing as many costs as a convict under death sentence. Being alive and having nothing better to do, he will spend his time in prison conceiving of ever-new habeas corpus petitions, which being unlimited, in effect cannot be rejected as res judicata. The cost is higher.”
The DP, remember, is a SUPPLEMENT--- it adds variety to punishments. It is not the only punishment.
A third loophole in comparisons: they account for short term costs, not the long term ones. 6 states in America have the DP, but they have never had to use it since 1976. Is then the DP not a deterrent?
Capital punishment was suspended in Britain for 5 years. Statistics showed a 125% rise in murders that would have attracted a death sentence. What statistics cannot show is how society has changed over the years with many more criminals still alive.
The murder rate in the U.S. dropped from 24 562 in 1993 to 18 209 in 1997, the lowest for years (a 26% reduction)--- during a period of increased use of the DP.
Countries like Singapore that almost always carry out death sentences have been able to reduce serious crimes near to nil. Violent crimes are virtually extinct in Arabic cultures.
For those who still think the DP is not a deterrent to crime, it is the BEST way for society to ensure zero recidivism.
Besides, let me tell you that LI is a punishment that tends to deteriorate over time. “Life imprisonment” over the years means only a short time in prison, criminals find easy or crooked ways to escape from prison when they get time to think behind jail bars.
I can guess that you have absolutely no idea how much a mere visit to a lawyer costs. Take this as an example in real life.
One of my family members had an extortion case filed against him. The normal penalty for this is imprisonment for 12 years. This was back in 2008. At present the court has given the verdict of no punishment. But his expenditures till now on lawyers and others were 600000 tk or 8000 usd. This is excluding the bribes he had to pay.
Now suppose the penalty was death and his crime have been proved. In this case, he would have tried to save himself in any way possible. He would have appealed many times in the court. If his expenditure for one year is this much, imagine if the case dragged on for 5 years due to appeal.
Let’s analyse the example you gave:
If he wanted to avoid wasting his money in court trials, he shouldn’t have broken the law in the first place itself.
“Normal penalty is imprisonment for 12 years.” It is NOT a DP equivalent LI case. For your comparison to be valid, the penalty should be imprisonment for life.
Thus your expenditure would be greater on the death side. And most hardcore criminals are usually rich.
The fact remains that expenditures are greater on the death side compared to life imprisonment.
If a criminal gets life imprisonment penalty he is less likely to appeal. Thus the expenditures get lower. But in death sentence, he would certainly appeal and expenditures get higher due to this. And higher than life imprisonment.
It does not matter whether criminals are poor or rich. In most cases, the jurisdiction pays for the appeals to make sure that, as far as possible, innocents are not condemned.
You were saying something about America donating 28 billion to poor countries. This is a very unrealistic assumption. America would never donate this because this would go against its interest. If it does, it will surely demand something in return or pursue its objectives indirectly which YOU are not capable of understanding at this level. This is logical. Because I would do the same if I was in control of US.
Americans do not agree to give their money earned through hard work to feed those criminals who kill their children. This goes against THEIR interest. To pass on it very briefly, a country helps through donations to improve diplomatic relationships, so that it can expect help from others when the need arises. And this is in their interest.
I take business studies, ict, economics and computing in A level.
Your assumption about the percentage figure is thus a mere assumption. Its not reality.
GDP figures tend to fluctuate while the expenditure on prisons normally remains the same--- this is reality. A country faces economic booms and depressions. Take the expenditure on prisons and compare it to a GDP figure during an economic boom and make the same comparison for a depression or slump--- this should be enough to understand how the percentage method is unrealistically misleading.
You said somewhere before that people will not support the DP because it is too cruel. Well, here’s what America says:
Polls show the majority of Americans support the death penalty for convicted murderers. And Lubbock County’s top prosecutor said he never considers cost when deciding whether to pursue the death penalty.
“I don’t dispute that it’s more expensive. The people who say that’s a viable argument, please look at a mother in the eye who has lost a son and say ‘you know what, I could have stopped him and I didn’t because it costs too much,’” Lubbock County Criminal District Attorney Matt Powell said.
Some nations believe they do not have to sympathize with criminals and pay for the three square meals that they get for the rest of their lives, so that later, when these convicted criminals manage to get free, they attack the children of the peoples. Somebody who has already crossed the threshold of morality and murdered someone does not find it difficult to kill again.
Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society. It provides a much safer life for all of us. A criminal who kills must pay by losing his life--- that is justice. How ironical, the justice system in some countries shows more sympathy for the criminals than it does to the victims. How can life in prison not mean life?
-
Noor, thank you. :)
I would like to add: life imprisonment increases population in prisons. :D
-
Noor, thank you. :)
I would like to add: life imprisonment increases population in prisons. :D
the more the merrier :P
-
the more the merrier :P
You're still alive. :P Good to know. :D
-
You're still alive. :P Good to know. :D
;D
but i just cant participate as much in the forums as i used to :D
-
;D
but i just cant participate as much in the forums as i used to :D
Yes, I saw that. It's "natural", happens with time. ;)
-
You may have noticed that a few days ago, nid404 was debating with me. She was replying to my arguements and I was debating perfectly on my side too. But lately, she was sacred of me -sacred of getting busted. So she stopped replying to my arguements with her. All in all, she surrendered the debate.
I would call her A VERY WISE LADY to have considered this, BECAUSE she knew she would have got busted if she continued arguing with me. That is, she had foreseen the consequences of her actions. Therefore, I would recommend you to consider the same thing - Surrender before getting busted!
Im sorry executive, you can get all stylish if you want - but this attitude doesnt hold well here.
Nid will have her reasons - this is not debating spirit!
I'd greatly appreciate it if you abstain from such pride and wool headed ness next time.
Thank You.
Oh and Alpha, SHUT UP is not appreciated either.
*yawns*
I know i can't do so and I won't do it, but yall have no idea how tempted i am to just lock this topic
I am trying to be as impartial as possible (as for me being a part of the debate, count me out, i already gave my point of view)
but comon Borakk, a little bit more respect to your "opponents"? and everyone needs to remember you do NOT have to retaliate, EACH AND EVERY single point your "opponent" gives; this is not a tug-of-war, its a freakin debate, it doesn't have to end with one team winning and the other losing ;)
I am back!!!
OK OK Sorry!!!
Angell and nid404,
Wanna shake hands with me?
Happy Birthday Nid!
Cheers!
-
Alpha:
I was really busy. Last week I completed the registration. I have to REALLY get going if I am to get As in my A2.
And that goodbye thread meant that I will be much less active in the forum than I used to. Not that I am leaving!!! :)
Cheers!
-
Welcome back executive! :)
Thanks for the wishes! :D
-
Alpha:
I was really busy. Last week I completed the registration. I have to REALLY get going if I am to get As in my A2.
And that goodbye thread meant that I will be much less active in the forum than I used to. Not that I am leaving!!! :)
Cheers!
Welcome back. :)
Don't worry. I don't mind waiting for 6 months. ;)
No hurry. There is no fire. Better concentrate on your studies.
And wish you Good Luck :)!
Do your best.
-
i know the debate is over but i wanned to make my point
life imprisonment is only sentenced by idiots who dont want blood directly on their hands
and whoever was talkin about expenditure your making no sense cos if the guy dies anyway whats the problem if he has to pay? and your from an arab country im guessing, but in other countries they have pro-bono work and governments assign lawyers if you cannot afford 1
-
i know the debate is over but i wanned to make my point
life imprisonment is only sentenced by idiots who dont want blood directly on their hands
and whoever was talkin about expenditure your making no sense cos if the guy dies anyway whats the problem if he has to pay? and your from an arab country im guessing, but in other countries they have pro-bono work and governments assign lawyers if you cannot afford 1
I'm sorry I didn't get your point...could you please elaborate and state which of the two you support..Thanks :)
-
It's not over yet.
And your argument seems more neutral. A bit ambiguous as well.
and whoever was talkin about expenditure your making no sense cos if the guy dies anyway whats the problem if he has to pay?
The criminal has to pay a lawyer? Who has to pay for what? The govt. pays for a defence lawyer, we know that. The prosecutor then?
Be clearer please.
-
a govmnt rarely has to pay for a lawyer
its usually pro bono work or its a govmtn lawyer in the first place
and if the criminal wants a better lawyer he can pay for it
and im saying that only judges who think they wont be able to sleep at night if they sentence the criminal to murder give life sentences
i mean wats the effing use?
-
Punishments should be according to the crime one has committed,if someone's accused of kidnapping,hijack him to an isolated island..If one is accused of robbery,cut his hands off and paralyze him etc etc
As the punishment gets severe,crime gets reduced automatically...
But It is very common for innocent people to get punished or caught amidst confusion. It gives time for them to prove their innocence if possible.
I feel this time was given for people to go over their life in silence and realize and learn their mistakes.
Another thought I have is that, every human being either knowingly or unknowingly is responsible for how the world is right now. A simple example would be : Downloading pirated stuff over the internet.
It would force people to either hike the prices or if someone loses because of this stealing, they would be forced into any depression, sickness and who know what they'll be capable of doing. A crime may be? So indirectly we might become responsible. So we pay the price. Unfortunately not many of us realize our actions and how it might affect the world in general.
-
Punishments should be according to the crime one has committed,if someone's accused of kidnapping,hijack him to an isolated island..If one is accused of robbery,cut his hands off and paralyze him etc etc
As the punishment gets severe,crime gets reduced automatically...
But It is very common for innocent people to get punished or caught amidst confusion. It gives time for them to prove their innocence if possible.
I feel this time was given for people to go over their life in silence and realize and learn their mistakes.
Another thought I have is that, every human being either knowingly or unknowingly is responsible for how the world is right now. A simple example would be : Downloading pirated stuff over the internet.
It would force people to either hike the prices or if someone loses because of this stealing, they would be forced into any depression, sickness and who know what they'll be capable of doing. A crime may be? So indirectly we might become responsible. So we pay the price. Unfortunately not many of us realize our actions and how it might affect the world in general.
I will comment on the pts in bold
The first one, agreed completely
Second one...we all have trials...every man gets to prove his innocence.
But when we have all the evidences against gruesome terrorists, why do we keep them in prison and serve them.
Heard of Kasab?? He's ironically the safest person in India after 26/11/2008
If you don't knw about the incident...just look up on the net....
Attack in Mumbai 26/11
-
I just felt like continuing this one....
To make it clear, only major felonies would receive a death penalty or life imprisonment.
Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much safer for the rest of us than long term or permanent incarceration. It is self evident that dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or after being released from it.
Money is not an inexhaustible commodity and the government may very well better spend our (limited) resources on the old, the young and the sick etc., rather than on the long term imprisonment of murderers, rapists, etc.
Does the death penalty deter? It is hard to prove one way or the other because in most retentionist countries the number of people actually executed per year (as compared to those sentenced to death) is usually a very small proportion. It would, however, seem that in those countries (e.g. Singapore) which almost always carry out death sentences, there is far less serious crime. This tends to indicate that the death penalty is a deterrent, but only where execution is a virtual certainty. The death penalty is much more likely to be a deterrent where the crime requires planning and the potential criminal has time to think about the possible consequences. Where the crime is committed in the heat of the moment there is no likelihood that any punishment will act as a deterrent. There is a strong argument here for making murder committed in these circumstances not punishable by death or for having degrees of murder as in the USA.
Anti-death penalty campaigners always argue that death is not a deterrent and usually site studies based upon American states to prove their point. This is, in my view, flawed and probably chosen to be deliberately misleading. Let us examine the situation in three countries.
Britain.
The rates for unlawful killings in Britain have more than doubled since abolition of capital punishment in 1964 from 0.68 per 100,000 of the population to 1 .42 per 100,000. Home Office figures show around unlawful killings 300 in 1964, which rose to 565 in 1994 and 833 in 2004. The figure for homicides in 2007 was 734. The principal causes of homicide are fights involving fists and feet, stabbing and cutting by glass or a broken bottle, shooting and strangling. 72% of the victims were male with younger men being most at risk. Convictions for the actual crime of murder (as against manslaughter and other unlawful killings) have also been rising inexorably. Between 1900 and 1965 they ran at an average of 29 per year. There were 57 in 1965 – the first year of abolition. Ten years later the total for the year was 107 which rose to 173 by 1985 and 214 in 1995. There have been 71 murders committed by people who have been released after serving "life sentences" in the period between 1965 and 1998 according to Home Office statistics. Some 6,300 people are currently serving sentences of “life in prison” for murder. Figures released in 2009 show that since 1997, 65 prisoners who were released after serving life were convicted of a further crime. These included two murders, one suspected murder, one attempted murder, three rapes and two instances of grievous bodily harm. The same document also noted that 304 people given life sentences since January 1997 served less than 10 years of them, actually in prison.
Statistics were kept for the 5 years that capital punishment was suspended in Britain (1965-1969) and these showed a 125% rise in murders that would have attracted a death sentence. Whilst statistically all this is true, it does not tell one how society has changed over nearly 40 years. It may well be that the murder rate would be the same today if we had retained and continued to use the death penalty. It is impossible to say that only this one factor affects the murder rate. Easier divorce has greatly reduced the number of domestic murders, unavailability of poisons has seen poisoning become almost extinct whilst tight gun control had begun to reduce the number of shootings, however, drug related gun crime is on the increase and there have been a spate of child murders recently. Stabbings have increased dramatically as have the kicking and beating to death of people who have done something as minor as arguing with someone or jostling them in a crowd, i.e. vicious and virtually motiveless killings. As in most Western countries, greatly improved medical techniques have saved many victims who would have previously died from their injuries. Careful analysis of the situation in Britain between 1900 and the outbreak of the second World War in 1939 seems to point to the death penalty being a strong deterrent to what one might call criminal murders, i.e. those committed in the furtherance of theft, but a very poor deterrent to domestic murders, i.e. those committed in the heat of the moment. A very large proportion of the victims of those hanged during this period were wives and girlfriends, with a small number of husbands and boyfriends. So where a crime was thought about in advance the criminal had time to consider the consequences of their action and plan differently. For instance they may decide to rob a bank at the weekend to avoid coming into contact with the staff and to do so without carrying firearms.
America.
In most states, other than Texas, the number of executions as compared to death sentences and murders is infinitesimally small. Of the 1099 executions carried out in the whole of the USA from 1977 to the end of 2007, Texas accounts for 406 or 37%.
Interestingly, the murder rate in the U.S. dropped from 24,562 in 1993 to 18,209 in 1997, the lowest for years (a 26% reduction) - during a period of increased use of the death penalty. 311 (62%) of the 500 executions have been carried out in this period. The number of murders in 2003 was about 15,600.
America still had five times as many murders per head of population as did Britain in 1997 whilst Singapore had 15 times fewer murders per head of population than Britain. How can one account for this? There are obvious cultural differences between the three countries although all are modern and prosperous.
It is dangerously simplistic to say that the rise in executions is the only factor in the reduction of homicides in the US. There has been a general trend to a more punitive society, (e.g. the "three strikes and your out" law) over this period and cities such as New York claim great success in reducing crime rates through the use of "zero tolerance" policing policies. But otherwise, there has been political and economic stability over the period and no obvious social changes. Improvements in medical techniques have also saved many potential deaths. Various recent academic studies in the USA have shown that capital punishment is a deterrent there. For details of these go to http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
Texas.
As stated above, Texas carries out far more executions than any other American state (between 1982 and 2007 it executed 404 men and 2 women) and there is now clear evidence of a deterrent effect. My friend Rob Gallagher (author of Before the Needles website) has done an analysis of the situation using official FBI homicide figures. Between 1980 and 2000, there were 41,783 murders in Texas
In 1980 alone, 2,392 people died by homicide, giving it a murder rate of 16.88 for every 100,000 of the population. (The U.S. average murder rate in 1980 was 10.22, falling to 5.51 per 100,000 by the year 2000. Over the same period, Texas had a population increase of 32%, up 6,681,991 from 14,169,829 to 20,851,820. There were only 1,238 murders in 2000 giving it a rate of 5.94, just slightly higher than the national rate which had dropped to 5.51/100,000. In the base year (1980), there was one murder for every 5,924 Texans. By the year 2000, this had fallen to one murder for every 16,843 people or 35.2% of the 1980 value. If the 1980 murder rate had been allowed to maintain, there would have been, by interpolation, a total of 61,751 murders. On this basis, 19,968 people are not dead today who would have potentially been homicide victims, representing 78 lives saved for each one of the 256 executions. The overall U.S. murder rate declined by 54% during the period. Therefore, to achieve a reasonable estimate of actual lives saved, we must multiply 19,968 by 0.54 giving a more realistic figure of 10,783 lives saved or 42 lives per execution. Even if this estimate was off by a factor of 10 (which is highly unlikely), there would still be over 1,000 innocent lives saved or 4 lives per execution. One can see a drop in the number of murders in 1983, the year after Charlie Brooks became the first person to be executed by lethal injection in America.
In 2000, Texas had 1,238 murders (an average of 23.8 murders per week), but in 2001 only 31 people were given the death sentence and 17 prisoners executed (down from 40 the previous year). This equates to a capital sentencing rate of 2.5% or one death sentence for every 40 murders.
Singapore.
Singapore always carries out death sentences where the appeal has been turned down, so its population knows precisely what will happen to them if they are convicted of murder or drug trafficking - is this concept deeply embedded into the sub-consciousness of most of its people, acting as an effective deterrent?
In 1995, Singapore hanged an unusually large number of 7 murderers with 4 in 1996, 3 in 1997 and only one in 1998 rising to 6 in 1999 (3 for the same murder). Singapore takes an equally hard line on all other forms of crime with stiff on the spot fines for trivial offences such as dropping litter and chewing gum in the street, caning for males between 18 and 50 for a wide variety of offences, and rigorous imprisonment for all serious crimes.
If the general conclusion is that capital punishment is desirable, then the first step toward restoration is for the government to present a fully thought out set of proposals that can be put to the people in a referendum stating precisely what offences should carry the death penalty, how it should be carried out, etc
-
I just felt like continuing this one....
To make it clear, only major felonies would receive a death penalty or life imprisonment.
Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much safer for the rest of us than long term or permanent incarceration. It is self evident that dead criminals cannot commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or after being released from it.
Money is not an inexhaustible commodity and the government may very well better spend our (limited) resources on the old, the young and the sick etc., rather than on the long term imprisonment of murderers, rapists, etc.
Does the death penalty deter? It is hard to prove one way or the other because in most retentionist countries the number of people actually executed per year (as compared to those sentenced to death) is usually a very small proportion. It would, however, seem that in those countries (e.g. Singapore) which almost always carry out death sentences, there is far less serious crime. This tends to indicate that the death penalty is a deterrent, but only where execution is a virtual certainty. The death penalty is much more likely to be a deterrent where the crime requires planning and the potential criminal has time to think about the possible consequences. Where the crime is committed in the heat of the moment there is no likelihood that any punishment will act as a deterrent. There is a strong argument here for making murder committed in these circumstances not punishable by death or for having degrees of murder as in the USA.
Anti-death penalty campaigners always argue that death is not a deterrent and usually site studies based upon American states to prove their point. This is, in my view, flawed and probably chosen to be deliberately misleading. Let us examine the situation in three countries.
Britain.
The rates for unlawful killings in Britain have more than doubled since abolition of capital punishment in 1964 from 0.68 per 100,000 of the population to 1 .42 per 100,000. Home Office figures show around unlawful killings 300 in 1964, which rose to 565 in 1994 and 833 in 2004. The figure for homicides in 2007 was 734. The principal causes of homicide are fights involving fists and feet, stabbing and cutting by glass or a broken bottle, shooting and strangling. 72% of the victims were male with younger men being most at risk. Convictions for the actual crime of murder (as against manslaughter and other unlawful killings) have also been rising inexorably. Between 1900 and 1965 they ran at an average of 29 per year. There were 57 in 1965 – the first year of abolition. Ten years later the total for the year was 107 which rose to 173 by 1985 and 214 in 1995. There have been 71 murders committed by people who have been released after serving "life sentences" in the period between 1965 and 1998 according to Home Office statistics. Some 6,300 people are currently serving sentences of “life in prison” for murder. Figures released in 2009 show that since 1997, 65 prisoners who were released after serving life were convicted of a further crime. These included two murders, one suspected murder, one attempted murder, three rapes and two instances of grievous bodily harm. The same document also noted that 304 people given life sentences since January 1997 served less than 10 years of them, actually in prison.
Statistics were kept for the 5 years that capital punishment was suspended in Britain (1965-1969) and these showed a 125% rise in murders that would have attracted a death sentence. Whilst statistically all this is true, it does not tell one how society has changed over nearly 40 years. It may well be that the murder rate would be the same today if we had retained and continued to use the death penalty. It is impossible to say that only this one factor affects the murder rate. Easier divorce has greatly reduced the number of domestic murders, unavailability of poisons has seen poisoning become almost extinct whilst tight gun control had begun to reduce the number of shootings, however, drug related gun crime is on the increase and there have been a spate of child murders recently. Stabbings have increased dramatically as have the kicking and beating to death of people who have done something as minor as arguing with someone or jostling them in a crowd, i.e. vicious and virtually motiveless killings. As in most Western countries, greatly improved medical techniques have saved many victims who would have previously died from their injuries. Careful analysis of the situation in Britain between 1900 and the outbreak of the second World War in 1939 seems to point to the death penalty being a strong deterrent to what one might call criminal murders, i.e. those committed in the furtherance of theft, but a very poor deterrent to domestic murders, i.e. those committed in the heat of the moment. A very large proportion of the victims of those hanged during this period were wives and girlfriends, with a small number of husbands and boyfriends. So where a crime was thought about in advance the criminal had time to consider the consequences of their action and plan differently. For instance they may decide to rob a bank at the weekend to avoid coming into contact with the staff and to do so without carrying firearms.
America.
In most states, other than Texas, the number of executions as compared to death sentences and murders is infinitesimally small. Of the 1099 executions carried out in the whole of the USA from 1977 to the end of 2007, Texas accounts for 406 or 37%.
Interestingly, the murder rate in the U.S. dropped from 24,562 in 1993 to 18,209 in 1997, the lowest for years (a 26% reduction) - during a period of increased use of the death penalty. 311 (62%) of the 500 executions have been carried out in this period. The number of murders in 2003 was about 15,600.
America still had five times as many murders per head of population as did Britain in 1997 whilst Singapore had 15 times fewer murders per head of population than Britain. How can one account for this? There are obvious cultural differences between the three countries although all are modern and prosperous.
It is dangerously simplistic to say that the rise in executions is the only factor in the reduction of homicides in the US. There has been a general trend to a more punitive society, (e.g. the "three strikes and your out" law) over this period and cities such as New York claim great success in reducing crime rates through the use of "zero tolerance" policing policies. But otherwise, there has been political and economic stability over the period and no obvious social changes. Improvements in medical techniques have also saved many potential deaths. Various recent academic studies in the USA have shown that capital punishment is a deterrent there. For details of these go to http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
Texas.
As stated above, Texas carries out far more executions than any other American state (between 1982 and 2007 it executed 404 men and 2 women) and there is now clear evidence of a deterrent effect. My friend Rob Gallagher (author of Before the Needles website) has done an analysis of the situation using official FBI homicide figures. Between 1980 and 2000, there were 41,783 murders in Texas
In 1980 alone, 2,392 people died by homicide, giving it a murder rate of 16.88 for every 100,000 of the population. (The U.S. average murder rate in 1980 was 10.22, falling to 5.51 per 100,000 by the year 2000. Over the same period, Texas had a population increase of 32%, up 6,681,991 from 14,169,829 to 20,851,820. There were only 1,238 murders in 2000 giving it a rate of 5.94, just slightly higher than the national rate which had dropped to 5.51/100,000. In the base year (1980), there was one murder for every 5,924 Texans. By the year 2000, this had fallen to one murder for every 16,843 people or 35.2% of the 1980 value. If the 1980 murder rate had been allowed to maintain, there would have been, by interpolation, a total of 61,751 murders. On this basis, 19,968 people are not dead today who would have potentially been homicide victims, representing 78 lives saved for each one of the 256 executions. The overall U.S. murder rate declined by 54% during the period. Therefore, to achieve a reasonable estimate of actual lives saved, we must multiply 19,968 by 0.54 giving a more realistic figure of 10,783 lives saved or 42 lives per execution. Even if this estimate was off by a factor of 10 (which is highly unlikely), there would still be over 1,000 innocent lives saved or 4 lives per execution. One can see a drop in the number of murders in 1983, the year after Charlie Brooks became the first person to be executed by lethal injection in America.
In 2000, Texas had 1,238 murders (an average of 23.8 murders per week), but in 2001 only 31 people were given the death sentence and 17 prisoners executed (down from 40 the previous year). This equates to a capital sentencing rate of 2.5% or one death sentence for every 40 murders.
Singapore.
Singapore always carries out death sentences where the appeal has been turned down, so its population knows precisely what will happen to them if they are convicted of murder or drug trafficking - is this concept deeply embedded into the sub-consciousness of most of its people, acting as an effective deterrent?
In 1995, Singapore hanged an unusually large number of 7 murderers with 4 in 1996, 3 in 1997 and only one in 1998 rising to 6 in 1999 (3 for the same murder). Singapore takes an equally hard line on all other forms of crime with stiff on the spot fines for trivial offences such as dropping litter and chewing gum in the street, caning for males between 18 and 50 for a wide variety of offences, and rigorous imprisonment for all serious crimes.
If the general conclusion is that capital punishment is desirable, then the first step toward restoration is for the government to present a fully thought out set of proposals that can be put to the people in a referendum stating precisely what offences should carry the death penalty, how it should be carried out, etc
+rep!
For typing long...
-
I dont think they should kill someone, not for pitty on him (like u said in first post) but cuz this is fast and not painful. If he was courages enough to kill someone, then he should pay for it. U said that he has loved people... well the one who was killed had people too!! I think it should be like wiping or smth. Cruel, but its for a reason. Also this will make people scared. Noone can dare steal in ksa because of the 'cutting hand' rule. It also prevents him from stealing again since he has no hand ;D xD
-
+rep!
For typing long...
I'm gonna disappoint u here....most of it is copy past :P lol
-
I dont think they should kill someone, not for pitty on him (like u said in first post) but cuz this is fast and not painful. If he was courages enough to kill someone, then he should pay for it. U said that he has loved people... well the one who was killed had people too!! I think it should be like wiping or smth. Cruel, but its for a reason. Also this will make people scared. Noone can dare steal in ksa because of the 'cutting hand' rule. It also prevents him from stealing again since he has no hand ;D xD
Kill or not? ::)
-
I'm gonna disappoint u here....most of it is copy past :P lol
I know, I'd read that. ;)
+rep for showing me how long posts could be atrocities for the eyes! :D
-
lol.. :D :D
-
Kill or not? ::)
nope
-
I think an eye for an eye...every action has an equal and opposite reaction....
if you kill someone... you should be killed
if you steal with your hands.... ur hands should be cut off
if you rape some one...you should be rap<ahem> wait a minute...-killed
in my opinion a society should always be dealt with in strict way...
if you impose strict consequences...people will stop doing crimes...simple as that...