ezek Posted:

eye for an eye imo

people that kill should lose there life

not career criminals though

that’s what i said originally,

however, those against the death penalty revealed that extensive therapies exist to change criminals

i incorporated this into my idea

this way, the death penalty can be used less (some say it is inhumane)

DarkDespair5 Posted:

bump

bump

those who argue against capital punishment say that killing people is wrong

those who argue for capital punishment say that killing people is a good way to isolate dangerous criminals from society

my solution takes both of these into account

1. use the “intense therapy”. This should free all innocent people and all petty criminals.

2. apply punishments to the remaining criminals

2.5 use capital punishment as last resort for worst criminals (those who could not be fixed through the intense therapy, and still commit crimes that warrant capital punishment)

eg

Two guys each kills someone. Both go through intense therapy. Person A comes out alright, he is let back into society. Person B doesn’t come out alright. He still gets his second chance. He is let back into society. Person A is fixed, so he doesn’t commit big crimes. Person B commits another murder. He gets capital punishment.

Using this system, one killer was spared. The other was removed. This leaves the “safer” killer amongst others, while the dangerous killer is removed from society

Shii Posted:

Except you forfeit any benefit to the system in that example.

In both examples, 4 people die. Only difference is in one, 2 had commited crimes, and 2 hadn’t, when in the other, 1 felon dies, and 3 innocents die.

So I fail to see why that’s an improvement.

Remember that 1 felon is a good guy on the inside, and 1 is not (for the purpose of my example)

With capital punishment: 2 murders, 2 felons, 2 felons put to death, all 4 dead

With my system: 2 murders, 2 felons, 1 converted, 1 felon

1 more murder, 1 more dead, 2nd felon put to death = 4 dead, 1 converted felon

No capital punishment: 2 murders, 2 felons, 2 murders, 2 felons…

continue until felons die (84 deaths)

there are three cases, not just two

in the case with pure capital punishment, 4 deaths occur, and the problem is solved

thus, pure capital punishment is a sensible approach to the problem

with my two-strike system, both criminals got a 2nd chance, but the truly malicious criminal murders again (which cannot happen once he is dead)

with no capital punishment, murders keep happening

Shii Posted:

I would agree that capital punishment of any kind is an improvement upon no capital punishment, in that it avoids prison overcrowding in a small extent, and also that it removes the criminals.

In the present form you’re advocating, the reformation system is basically trading a reformed criminal for an innocent civilian, which is hardly a fair trade, considering one has transgressed severely and is getting off for it, while the civilian has done nothing warranting punishment, but yet dies.

The only real way you can improve the system is either improve the law system to the point that innocent people aren’t condemned to death, or figure out a way to prevent the reformees from having the ability to kill again.

Since the intense therapy that was suggested by others cannot be perfect,

it would seem necessary to use the death penalty as a backup.

In the future, when a better therapy system is possible, the death penalty may become truly obsolete. Until then, it is quite necessary.

This might be a kind of old argument, but I still don’t see how the new model accounts for the fact that there is no way at the current time to be 100% certain that someone committed a crime… and I don’t really see how the possibility of killing any innocent person really allows for a clear conscience when it comes to capital punishment.