Home | Download | Discussion | Help | Site Map | New Posts | Sign in
Replies: 34 (Who?), Viewed: 8081 times.
Page 1 of 2
Test Subject
Original Poster
#1 Old 13th Sep 2011 at 10:13 AM
Default protesting death penelty at excutions.....
im sure there is are threads about capital punishment but i am specifically asking if anybody would be able to protest it outside an execution? i am completely against the death penalty, however i cannot imagine losing someone in such a way that the killer gets the death penalty. i think watching protesters outside the execution would be really upsetting and almost like a slap in the face because they are basically sticking up for specific murders..... even tho im against the death penalty cant say that i could protest the death of someone like ted bundy.....
Advertisement
Scholar
#2 Old 13th Sep 2011 at 10:27 AM
They aren't sticking up for murderers, they are protesting an antiquated justice ideology of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." I am against the death penalty as well, but I definitely do not do it for the criminals. I'm against it because I think it is hypocritical to kill someone for killing someone. 0_0 Just typing that out sounds ridiculous. But then, there is the fact that we have to pay taxes to keep these criminals alive... so it's a double-edged sword (Catch-22... whatever other cliche you can think of to apply here, go right ahead). It presents a dilemma. /rant

Although, I *can* see where you are coming from when it comes to protesting... it probably does seem like a slap in the face, which might misconstrue their intentions.
Née whiterider
staff: administrator
#3 Old 13th Sep 2011 at 11:36 AM
Well, I guess that depends on what purpose you believe the death penalty serves.

Is it to make the family of the victim feel somehow better, to give them closure, or to make them feel that the victim has been avenged? Then, yes, protesting at an execution might be disrespectful.

Is it so that the criminal can't kill anyone else? Protest away, why not, what harm is it doing?

Is it because the criminal deserves to die? Again, protest away.

Is it to scare others off killing people, holding up the victim (of the execution, I mean) as an example of "if you kill people, we'll do this to you too"? If so, again, why not protest?

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Instructor
#4 Old 13th Sep 2011 at 2:37 PM
I'm anti-death penalty. Not solely because it is inhumane, (which I agree with) It simply costs less to house offenders for life, than it does to keep them on death row with the endless appeals etc. There was research done in California that suggests that we simply don't execute them that much and that prisoners are likely to die of other causes and the appeals, and court actions were a drain on the state.

In America we can protest (including unaccepatble things such as that nut who protests gay rights outside dead soldier's funerals) what we like, but since executions when they occur happen withing government prisons, getting anywhere near there to make an protest where people might see it is going to be a challenge. I'm not even sure you'd be allowed to gather outside a correctional institution either. It might be considered federal land.

I think familys of victims are intelligent enough to realize you are not protesting the incarceration of the criminal, but the criminal being executed. So I don't really consider it a slap in the face, just protesting the system.
Field Researcher
#5 Old 13th Sep 2011 at 3:29 PM
Typically, I am not against the death penalty, but we should have used it scarcely. Giving the death penalty should've been used in the most extreme cases. In those cases, I mean "Holy shit, this is some FUCKED up business". In a better example, I mean someone who has snapped and needs to be taken down. No reason why a man who opens fire on a resturant killing 20 people, which may include children, deserves to live. In a sense of humanitarian efforts, I don't think he should live simply from a psychological stand point-That is seriously fucked up stuff.

The way we used it, the eye for an eye approach, wasn't the appropriate use. It should've been used only for the most extreme cases-as I stated.
Banned
#6 Old 7th Jan 2012 at 7:20 AM
Where i live, canada, we dont have executions. Instead we have lifetime in prison.
Field Researcher
#7 Old 7th Jan 2012 at 5:41 PM
I'm against death penalty. I don't think it helps anyone, as having their murderer killed won't help victim's families to bring their beloved person back to life. You can argue that it can somehow comfort them, but I don't think that the purpose of Justice is "comforting victims", as that is a totally subjective and emotional concept and Justice should be objective.

Should they protest in the executions themselves? My answer is... why not? Saying that protesting at executions is like stepping up for criminals does not make sense for me. Protesters are not defending criminals, they are rejecting a practice (Death Penalty) that they consider unfair and protests are made when and where you think you have more chance of being listened, so I think they are doing it right.

On the other hand, I have NEVER understood who would want to go watch and execution, myself.
Instructor
#8 Old 8th Jan 2012 at 1:55 AM
I'm for the death penalty except in self defense, unfortunately here in Australia we don't have the death penalty, but whenever there is a vicious killing of someone innocent the outcry for it to be re-instated is strong.
Unfortunately it will never happen, there are to many who say it's barbaric. I don't agree, what is barbaric is killers who kill for whatever reason, a lot of them are sadistic and put their victims through horrible pain before they kill them.

If you are prepared to kill someone you should be prepared for the punishment.

I rather see a convicted killer be executed than him getting out after 20 years and kill again.

You can find more of my stuff here: http://www.blackpearlsims.com/downloads.php
Scholar
#9 Old 8th Jan 2012 at 4:44 AM
Trying to paint people who are objecting to a law as somehow conflated with the people who are actually breaking the law is just lame equivocation. It's a logical fallacy.

Criminals do not want to be executed.
Other people do not want criminals to be executed.
Other people are criminals.

Honestly I don't see much objective difference, accepting that justice is perfect, between putting someone to death and putting them into a hole in the ground alive for the rest of their life. My only issue with the practice is that not only the justice system imperfect, in the US were it is widely practiced we have a system of agents of the justice system dealing with notions that have very little to do with justice - prosecutors who need to be seen as "tough on crime" to be elected and police officers with biases and personal investments in harming the alleged criminals rather than supporting the evidence. Therefore it's not only alright to protest executions, it's righteous. Whether or not any given criminal committed their crime and therefore deserves to be permanently removed from society or not is irrelevant compared to the evidence that the entire system is plagued with serious errors. This is bad enough when someone's life is merely ruined by overzealous prosecution and police corruption, but it's another level entirely when the justice system is used as an instrument that might be taking the life of an innocent person. This does not mean I'm sympathetic with criminals, but that I'm sympathetic with the falsely accused and see the vast difference in resources and agency available to the prosecution compared to some people's defense teams.

Clean up the system and I'll support the punishments more.
Banned
#10 Old 12th Jan 2012 at 3:26 AM
Well you Do have to obey the law. If they do somthing agaisnt the law and the pentaly is death, then they have to die. But they should have some EXTREAMLY good eveidence before the execution. But i disagree about executions because of your religion.
Banned
#11 Old 13th Jan 2012 at 4:23 PM
It's my understanding that killing another human, i.e. murder, is illegal.
Instructor
#12 Old 13th Jan 2012 at 6:31 PM
I generaly agree that the death penalty needs to be given out only in Serious cases but I think its best to have it. I really hate the idea of mass murderers and serial killers living and even knowing the hellish life they will have in prison I think thats not enough.

However I respect ones right to there own opinion so I think that protesting at an excutions is mostly alright However I think you should make sure no familys are there because thats disrespectful.
Scholar
#13 Old 14th Jan 2012 at 5:59 AM
How exactly would you restrict someone's right of expression and another person's right to go where they want to and accomplish your notion PhenethyaSim?
Instructor
#14 Old 14th Jan 2012 at 4:34 PM
well there are plenty of excutions In which no one related to victims go I suppose you could protest at those and minimize the chance of upseting the family. Its not a perfect plan but I truly believe there is a way to respect the rights of both parties. and I also think the idea of right to expression is constantly abused beacuase yes a person CAN say ANYTHING they want WHENEVER they please but should they? not always.
Field Researcher
#15 Old 14th Jan 2012 at 10:33 PM Last edited by pinketamine : 15th Jan 2012 at 2:21 AM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhenethyaSim
I generaly agree that the death penalty needs to be given out only in Serious cases but I think its best to have it. I really hate the idea of mass murderers and serial killers living and even knowing the hellish life they will have in prison I think thats not enough.

However I respect ones right to there own opinion so I think that protesting at an excutions is mostly alright However I think you should make sure no familys are there because thats disrespectful.


I guess that the murderer's family could also argue that it is disrespectful to go watching how their son/brother/sister/whatever is executed. I suppose that protesters already know that they are exposing themselves to the families' anger.
Alchemist
#16 Old 16th Jan 2012 at 7:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GigaRevival
They aren't sticking up for murderers, they are protesting an antiquated justice ideology of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." I am against the death penalty as well, but I definitely do not do it for the criminals. I'm against it because I think it is hypocritical to kill someone for killing someone. 0_0 Just typing that out sounds ridiculous. But then, there is the fact that we have to pay taxes to keep these criminals alive... so it's a double-edged sword (Catch-22... whatever other cliche you can think of to apply here, go right ahead). It presents a dilemma. /rant

Although, I *can* see where you are coming from when it comes to protesting... it probably does seem like a slap in the face, which might misconstrue their intentions.


yet murder hasnt exactly ceased to be a problem, has it?

after a person is murdered, they are murdered forever. if the murdered was innocent, it is the loss of a potentially helpful influence on society (and certainly a point in the favor of not killing, as they themselves have never killed anybody).
if the murdered had killed someone, its the elimination of a threat. a viable threat. not a potential threat--someone who has proven themselves to be a real problem. since we have yet to develop a way to cure psychopathic murderers of their desire to murder, id say death is the next best thing (corpses certainly dont murder)...state-sanctioned, or not.
death works to stop murderers from murdering again. its a mean to an end. unless youve got a better sure-fire cure up your sleeve, id say its whats necessary.

ideally, "murder is wrong" would be enough to keep murderers from murdering. as it turns out, however, murderers still murder.

as for protesting... there's a time, place, and occasion for everything. not everyone seems to understand that, but there is. just like its not appropriate to protest homosexual military involvement at the funeral of a gay soldier, its not appropriate to protest the death penalty at an execution. it helps nothing, serves no purpose, and the message is entirely missed. it could be done better.

and, no, the justice system is not perfect. but its all we've got at the moment, and wishing for it to be better isnt enough to make it better. the american justice system needs a huge overhaul, but hey, we all know how much americans LOVE change though unified peaceful effort, dont we? (and i say "americans" because i live in the US...i cant speak for other countries.)

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Field Researcher
#17 Old 17th Jan 2012 at 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GigaRevival
They aren't sticking up for murderers, they are protesting an antiquated justice ideology of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth." I am against the death penalty as well, but I definitely do not do it for the criminals. I'm against it because I think it is hypocritical to kill someone for killing someone. 0_0 Just typing that out sounds ridiculous. But then, there is the fact that we have to pay taxes to keep these criminals alive... so it's a double-edged sword (Catch-22... whatever other cliche you can think of to apply here, go right ahead). It presents a dilemma. /rant

Although, I *can* see where you are coming from when it comes to protesting... it probably does seem like a slap in the face, which might misconstrue their intentions.


yeah I'm on the fence about the death penalty because it really is a catch 22. not only due to paying taxes but as Suicida mentioned they could have the wrong person and if they find out later, then it'll be too late. there's no undue to killing someone
also because if you imprison them, they could escape. you could be up to your eyeballs in security but they could still escape if they're a serial killer because serial killers have the possibility of being a mastermind.
Scholar
#18 Old 17th Jan 2012 at 10:54 AM
The justice system doesn't break from hypocrisy though. If politics broke every time there were hypocrisy there would be no social order whatsoever.

The point of imprisonment and the death penalty is exile. You're removing someone from society. What the crime was is fairly irrelevant to that basic premise, and how you come from actual punishments (fines, work orders, amputation if you're so inclined, etc) to exile to a room to exile to a hole in a ground is probably just a case, really, of our social leader ethics police running things trying to figure out relative values and such. That's the reason why our system (and probably everyone's system, come to think of it) is so screwed up. It's not made of logic, it's an incrementally developed thing were someone does one thing and we go "that's this bad" and then someone did something else and we decided "better? or worse?" and that's essentially how we made up our criminal laws, along with a healthy dose of "legalism through bronze age religious rulebook" and "this has always been a crime, but we don't know why."

The guy I know who's doing life in prison really screwed up, and he killed someone in a particularly gruesome way, covered it up, and pretended it didn't happen for years. But is he equal or worse than another person who killed someone? How gruesome is too gruesome? Which lives are worth putting someone into a box so that they never come back, and which murders do we just say "that was bad, but we're going to let you out in twenty years." Or ten, or even five. The problem isn't with the premise of the death penalty, it's with the screwed up way we arrive at it, and the painfully flawed people influenced by a political process that sustain it. But I don't think there's anywhere public that people should be disallowed from protesting, or assembling for any reason barring safety concerns. The right to free assembly is a fundamental part of a democratic society, for whatever reason people are doing it.
Field Researcher
#19 Old 17th Jan 2012 at 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistermook

The point of imprisonment and the death penalty is exile.

The guy I know who's doing life in prison really screwed up, and he killed someone in a particularly gruesome way, covered it up, and pretended it didn't happen for years. But is he equal or worse than another person who killed someone? How gruesome is too gruesome? Which lives are worth putting someone into a box so that they never come back, and which murders do we just say "that was bad, but we're going to let you out in twenty years." Or ten, or even five. The problem isn't with the premise of the death penalty, it's with the screwed up way we arrive at it, and the painfully flawed people influenced by a political process that sustain it. But I don't think there's anywhere public that people should be disallowed from protesting, or assembling for any reason barring safety concerns. The right to free assembly is a fundamental part of a democratic society, for whatever reason people are doing it.



I agree with most of what you say here.
My problem with life imprisonment as opposed to the death penalty, in cases of murder or child molestation is this:
In my country ( I am in South-Africa btw) a life sentence could in practical terms mean that the person is out on the street in as little as 2-5 years. This does not make me feel secure at all.

To paraphrase Robert Heinlein: The only solution to some types of crimes is the death penalty, because a sane person does commit those crimes. If by some means that person could be made sane, how would he then live with the knowledge of what he had done? He cannot and would have to commit suicide. Therefore it is in every bodies best interest to kill him now, lest he commit another such crime. ( too lazy to hunt for the exact quote, It is from Starship Troopers)

I don't think there is such a thing as how gruesome is enough. If you kill some one they are dead, end of story
Mad Poster
#20 Old 17th Jan 2012 at 6:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by opiumgirl
To paraphrase Robert Heinlein: The only solution to some types of crimes is the death penalty, because a sane person does commit those crimes. If by some means that person could be made sane, how would he then live with the knowledge of what he had done? He cannot and would have to commit suicide. Therefore it is in every bodies best interest to kill him now, lest he commit another such crime. ( too lazy to hunt for the exact quote, It is from Starship Troopers)

You know that novel (and the film) is one massive piece of satire and irony, right? Just sayin'

Polgannon Project - Seriously, I'm still working on it.
Field Researcher
#21 Old 17th Jan 2012 at 8:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxon
You know that novel (and the film) is one massive piece of satire and irony, right? Just sayin'


Yes I know, that does not mean that it can't be true I think.
The best satire imo makes us look at our selves in a different way and to see our actions from a different perspective.

If you look at the rest of that book, you will see that it very much satirizes/ criticizes our society for being too permissive in the human rights department. To the extent of ignoring the human rights of the masses e.g feeling safe in your home or in a public space, in favour of the few ( people killing eachother).
This is what I agree with. I think that our society would be better of if crime did not pay.
Field Researcher
#22 Old 18th Jan 2012 at 8:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by opiumgirl
I agree with most of what you say here.
My problem with life imprisonment as opposed to the death penalty, in cases of murder or child molestation is this:
In my country ( I am in South-Africa btw) a life sentence could in practical terms mean that the person is out on the street in as little as 2-5 years. This does not make me feel secure at all.

To paraphrase Robert Heinlein: The only solution to some types of crimes is the death penalty, because a sane person does commit those crimes. If by some means that person could be made sane, how would he then live with the knowledge of what he had done? He cannot and would have to commit suicide. Therefore it is in every bodies best interest to kill him now, lest he commit another such crime. ( too lazy to hunt for the exact quote, It is from Starship Troopers)

I don't think there is such a thing as how gruesome is enough. If you kill some one they are dead, end of story


yeah but even though what they did is wrong they probly have families and the families are gonna be the one suffering for it. the killer isn't going to suffer because he will cease to exist
also does killing them make us any better than the criminal?
also if you kill some, that won't prevent murder. they may have friends to avenge them and then the whole thing starts all over again.

another thing I thought of though is maybe the death penalty is good for one thing: to prevent overpopulation. we don't want people who do horrendous things to take up the space of this planet

idk.....like I said it's a catch 22.
it was annoying when I had to write a paper on this because you were supposed to say whether you were for or against the death penalty. I believe they accepted my answer but I hate the fact that I couldn't give a straight answer. while I'm contemplating which is the right decision, people are being executed AND innocent people are getting murdered.
Field Researcher
#23 Old 18th Jan 2012 at 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drakesecaravdis
yeah but even though what they did is wrong they probly have families and the families are gonna be the one suffering for it. the killer isn't going to suffer because he will cease to exist
also does killing them make us any better than the criminal?
also if you kill some, that won't prevent murder. they may have friends to avenge them and then the whole thing starts all over again.

another thing I thought of though is maybe the death penalty is good for one thing: to prevent overpopulation. we don't want people who do horrendous things to take up the space of this planet
.


I agree with you that the killer won't suffer because he will be dead, it is family and friends who suffer.
I choose to think about it like this.
Execution is not to torture you or to make you suffer, it is to remove you from a society that you have harmed in a permanent manner.
The friends and family of someone executed for horrible crimes surely have suffered already?

Killing murderers does not make us better than them. A life no matter how it is spent, is still a life. We should feel bad, it does make us killers.

The difference lies in the process of law. If someone goes to trial for murder, gets convicted and in due course executed, this is a predictable process. It is not random, it is a clear consequence of action and hopefully it will act as deterrent to others so that in the end we have less violent crime.

Crimes of violence on the other hand is very often random, unless it is premeditated and that is much worse and you cannot have this in a society because it erodes everyone's respect for life.

It is not a perfect solution as you have said, because it makes us on a very real level the same as people we condemn. I just can't think of a better one.
Test Subject
#24 Old 21st Jan 2012 at 7:59 PM
I agree in total with the death penalty, while yes, there are many that are innocent yet are still convicted. The basic point is that, while innocent people do die, and it is quite unfair, we can't just let it go. Letting a serial murderer rot in jail, not a good idea, there's the chance of escape, which is possible, or even him/her killing someone inside the prison that is in for a lesser crime. Is it right to sacrifice the lives of a few to save the lives of many? In this case, yes, it is. While it makes us no better than them, we are still getting rid of a threat to our society, we as humans would kill a dog that had killed someone, so why not kill someone who has killed multiple people? Someone that kills obviously can't control their primal urges, and thus don't belong in everyday society. Rehabilitation? You can't cure murderer's, they kill and thus will kill more, so they must be dealt with. I know... I sound cold-hearted, but why risk the lives of people by leaving them in prison where they can easily get out? I think I like what Texas is doing with their's, last I heard if you are convicted and there is at least three eye witness's, there is no wait and you put right in the front line to get executed, no appeal. Sounds logical to me.
Scholar
#25 Old 21st Jan 2012 at 8:26 PM
Since you obviously know that prisoners escaping from Death Row is terrible problem in the US, how about you entertain us with the figures about that? Obviously they must be going in one door and out the other from our maximum security prisons, that we need to seriously propose limiting Due Process. So what? Something like 50% escape? 75%

If prisoners escaping is this terrible problem, maybe we need to build better prisons.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top

Section jump