I don't know if a bullet to the back of the head or hanging is better. It actually turns out that hanging and the guillotine are much quicker and efficient ways of death than a bullet to the back of the head. Unfortunately you can't do that in America because it is "cruel or unusual punishment". But still that same amendment protects us from being attached to two horses running in different directions. Or drowned. I'm kinda mixed with he death penalty though. As long as you never have to see that person again, I'm happy. So they can be locked up for life or killed for all I care.
Hanging + Guillotine -Guillotine If a blade is not fine enough, or misses it's mark, it can leave the victim alive in severe pain. -Hanging Very Painful. Bullet through the head - Extremely small fraction of a second before the bullet penetrates the brain and causes brain death. Painful for a VERY short amount of time, miss the brain, alot of pain.
Well that short second of pain when the bullet is entering their skull is probably only a fraction of the pain they have caused to others. I can guarentee their forms of killing are not as humaine as which they are being put through in their final moments. Why spend millions on people who are going to die when it only takes a few dollars to do the same job? That money being wasted can go to much better places just look at our economy and the state its in now. Out with lethal injection in with bullets I say. Everyone is going green why not the justice system : ].
You don't seem to be getting/reading what I'm saying. No matter what method you use to kill the convict it still costs millions more due to the fact its a death sentence case. It goes through more courts and much more time is spent on a case which has be deemed punishable by death. This is because the courts want to be sure that the death penality is the right choice, legally. So when people say that we, as law-abiding citizens, shouldn't have to pay for a murderer to be kept in jail for the rest of his/her life, thats the cheaper option compared to killing someone.
Thats the issue with our court system if theres overwelming evidence with/without a confession it should not be so costly to the citizens. Yes people need fair chances to defend themselves in court and to have appeals but not in the way it is of now. Its not as effecient as it could be. I think it would be great if they had criminals working and paying for themselves to be inprissioned. So its not everyone else to take care of criminals.
PREPARE FOR WALL OF TEXT! Alright, first off.. you have to understand my point of view on this entire situation. I like to believe that every single human being. Small or large, young or old, are simple capsules. What really matters is the soul inside. Everybody has a soul (or spirit, if you prefer that terminology), and everybody has a right to it. When a killer kills, they destroy a soul and a life. But when you kill a killer, you're still destroying a soul. 2 wrong do not make a right. Souls are inherently clean and good. Yes, they can be corrupted, and broken. But they can also be mended, and fixed. Now, killers are people whether you want to accept it or not. They have a right to life and liberty, no matter what any constitution or government says. A government, despite what the people who compose it say, does not have the right to destroy a soul. I believe all souls can be fixed, it just takes the right kind of people. Heartless jail guards, abusive environments, and little to no psychiatric treatment in a concrete box is no way to fix any soul. It takes a firm, steady hand to turn people around and put them on a path contributory to the people of their nation. So yes, jails are a problem too. This leads me into my final part of this argument. Money. Obviously, psychiatric treatment costs much more money that putting a bullet into a criminals head. But, as stated before, everybody has a chance to their lives and liberty. Secondly, money is just paper with an imaginary value. I'm not going to go in depth into this subject, as it's a different debate. Just understand that money is a hindrance that we may be better without. In simple terms, money is worth nothing when it comes towards saving any human being.
The death penalty is nothing more than a way for the government to keep order in society.Sure it may be inhuman but the death penalty sends out a psychological message to society that is if you do this,this will happen to you there by keeping order in the world.its fear that controls people,its that fear of death."If I do this,and i know if i get caught they'll kill me,why take the chance?"but sometimes the punishment doesnt fit the crime and thats when its wrong.If a man takes a life,well then its reasnoble too say that hes capable to take another life and maybe is planing on doing it again,therefore lets stop it once and for all and remove this person from society while at the same time,sending out a message to the rest of society as a warning.
What you mentioned, Urban, is a concept called deterrence and is another common misconception that people will be too scared to commit crimes such as murder if they know they will be executed for it. There are several counter arguements to this and they go as follows; 1. Most murders/violent crimes are not pre-mediated, they are crimes of passion/heat of the moment events. Therefore the thought of possible consequences such as a death sentence doesn't enter the mind of offenders when they are commiting these acts, they are too caught up in the moment. 2. It has been shown, statisically and you can ask me for a link if you want, that the places in the world who still have the death sentence also have the highest crimes rates with a couple of exceptions, like Taiwan. The state of Texas has killed roughly in the region of 440 convicts throughout history and guess what? They have the highest homicide rates in America and have done for some time. Thats not an anomaly, states such as Oklahoma, Virginia and Florida follow Texas on the number of convicts executed and they also follow Texas on the list of highest homicide rates. Proof, in my eyes, that the death sentence does not act as a deterrence for society. Man I can't wait to debate this tomorrow in class.
So what if I say I don't believe in souls? lol I've never seen a soul hanging around me or anything so im just gonna say there aren't souls good or bad ones. I believe in criminal reform but not for murderers they should be executed.
Seeing it as a soul is just a way of understanding it. It gets past the physical discrepancies that all people have. The tough guy look, tattoos, and other things that make people seem tough. If you prefer it, don't think of them as individual souls, think of them as people.. which is more biased towards discrimination. The point is, you're killing a person that has a right to life. The idea of using souls is just to portray that everybody is good when it gets right down to it. The other idea behind using souls is just to emphasize that even though these people have killed or done something worthy of the death penalty, they still have a right to life. Thinking of their souls as the essence worth value simple removes any hatred behind any person. It is supposed to reveal the purity that all people have, or could have. If you have trouble understanding that, then move on... and stop trying to change my ideals when you don't even understand them.
The thing is not everyone is good so you're argument is mute. If everyone is essentialy good or should be looked at as good then there would be more chaos than already is around us. Yes everyone has right to life when they are born but when they choose to take others life rights away by murdering innocents then they have tossed theirs out as well. I guess an eye for an eye is the best way to explain this scenario. If you kill then you will be killed or at least kept in a tiny cell till you die either way you're screwed. People are not pure we are animals just like anyother creature .We have standards that we live by, but we also resort to primal instincs of desire , volience, survival which sometimes break these standards we live by. Are humans pure...no, we are just reacting to our natural behaviors and choosing to follow or deny them. When we follow them we can get in trouble but same goes to denying them. I don't see value in a human unless they prove value especialy after they make a poor decision like murder. Why value a humans life who took no value to the people they choose to hurt? Why show simpathy when they did not show it themselves.
Im sorry im being realistic because I know theres bad people in the world. Not everyone is good period. Some are good and some are just bad thinking everyone is good is just like thinking everyone is bad. Either way you are not acting rationaly, the best way to think is in the middle don't trust everyone but be open minded.
And what authority do you have to make such a statement? I choose to think that people (no matter how far gone) can still be helped. Simply ending their life won't do society much good. Some of the worst criminals do whatever they do because of a combination of hereditary and environmental factors. No one is unhelpable.
I watched Chocolaye news and they had there version of this. A man avoided it by making his Last Meal and all you can eat buffet. it worked, you try it.
I was pointing out that being too trusting or totaly untrusting to people is a bad thing and the best way of looking at it is to be both. I don't claim authority over the statement its just what I have observed you can try and counter it and give some sort of proof that everyone is good in the world but it will be easier to give an argument that everyone is bad. Redemption for criminals is not good enough I believe if it shortens the true sentence. "You do the crime you do the time" and if the crime is treason , murder, or crimes against humanity then you should die. Sure if a person is put in bad conditions they will have more motive to turn out bad but thats no exscuse for not being able to tell right from wrong. If you don't know right from wrong it will be your loss and the punishment should fit the crime no more and no less. [The punishment needs to fit the crime] Not every person that has a hard start turns out bad so why make exceptions for the ones who break the rules? People should not be judged on their upbringing but on their actions that they do today. If they are bad now then its their fault and to bad time to pay the price. If you murder anouther human then you should die easy as that.
There is no objectively good or bad people. There are only people. Everyone has some good and bad to them, which means everyone is good and bad. It is our choice (society) however what we bring out of these people (good or bad). Every criminal has the capacity to be "good" in society. And what if someone murders a tyrannical council that has been oppresing its citizens for decades? Or how about a child who was raised to be a soldier and can no longer seperate themselves from the atrocities he has commited? Do they deserve to die? On what authority do we have to simply give up on those who have been led astray? it's not naming exceptions, everyone will be rehabilitated. You forget that the worst criminals are a product of both hereditary and environmental factors. Some people legitimately can't see right from wrong (I'm not talking about people who are mentally ill, just people whose upbringing and environment was so bad they don't see the error of their ways based on society's standards). So they deserve to die because they didn't know what was moral and what was not? They should be helped so they can become productive members of society (again). Capital punishment is more expensive than life in prison.