GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by Littiz
Kid, how can you compare thefts with the murdering, so violent, of a
child? I can't imagine her last moments!
I don't know, I don't like death penalty for many reasons,
the first of them is that surely sometimes innocents have been
executed...
But for this particular crime, I think I'd want it, here
people don't really remain in prison that long...
There's always some legal escape for them!
Really I hope that the other prisoners could do something
(not know what...) to them!!

Dude, I understand you sentiments if you think that is a comparison than you're wrong. Just want to share another injustice news here

The Capital Punishment debate arises again, I see.
@Mental_nomad-I'm sorry to hear about what happened to you, and I'm glad you were found innocent.

Now for my opinion. This will probably surprise a lot of people, but I am in favour of the death penalty in some cases. Given that an offender has repeatedly committed serious offences on a number of occasions (and it must have been proven beyond any doubt), and has been psychiatrically/psychologically assessed as being insane in such a manner that they are likely to commit the same serious crimes again should they be given the chance, then I believe they should be killed. Capital punishment should not be used as a deterrent, but rather as a last-resort prevention. Some people are insane in ways that make them go out and kill/rape/whatever, and it is these people, who have no hope of stopping, who should be stopped from going out and doing the same thing again. It's like if you have a savage dog who mauls someone to death for no reason, and is likely to do so again. You do not put the dog down for revenge or to punish it, you put the dog down to remove the likelihood of it hurting/killing another victim.

I do not believe that capital punishment should be used as punishment or for revenge, but merely to remove the threat posed by proven dangers to society. It should not be employed if there is even the slightest doubt (as so many people have mentioned it is far too permanent a solution to risk making a mistake), and it should not be employed for one-time offenders who have the chance of being rehabilitated, but only in the cases of people who will commit more serious crimes if given the chance. Less serious crimes such as theft etc. should also not incur the death penalty.

And, of course, I say legalize dope.

Originally posted by Weasel


To protect my family from the murderers of this world I will give up (If you believe in a heaven) the chance to go to heaven. I will live with the blood of innocent people on my hands willingly to make sure my kid is not forced to live in fear of some person who kills for a thrill.


Has it gotten to the point where poor old billy should be helped after raping and then killing my little girl? Is this what this world is going to become?

"Sorry Mr.Weasel billy was sick and didn't know he was raping and killing your kid. We will be sure to get him the best help avaible. Sadly your kid had to be the reason for this. Thanks for having your kid , now we can fix billys problem. He will one day be a fine citizen of this country, one you can look up to and say....My kid gave her life to make billy who he is now."

My sentiments excatly.

Why is it we always focus more on the person doing the hidious crime, then the victims.

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
The Capital Punishment debate arises again, I see.
@Mental_nomad-I'm sorry to hear about what happened to you, and I'm glad you were found innocent.

Now for my opinion. This will probably surprise a lot of people, but I am in favour of the death penalty in some cases. Given that an offender has repeatedly committed serious offences on a number of occasions (and it must have been proven beyond any doubt), and has been psychiatrically/psychologically assessed as being insane in such a manner that they are likely to commit the same serious crimes again should they be given the chance, then I believe they should be killed. Capital punishment should not be used as a deterrent, but rather as a last-resort prevention. Some people are insane in ways that make them go out and kill/rape/whatever, and it is these people, who have no hope of stopping, who should be stopped from going out and doing the same thing again. It's like if you have a savage dog who mauls someone to death for no reason, and is likely to do so again. You do not put the dog down for revenge or to punish it, you put the dog down to remove the likelihood of it hurting/killing another victim.

I do not believe that capital punishment should be used as punishment or for revenge, but merely to remove the threat posed by proven dangers to society. It should not be employed if there is even the slightest doubt (as so many people have mentioned it is far too permanent a solution to risk making a mistake), and it should not be employed for one-time offenders who have the chance of being rehabilitated, but only in the cases of people who will commit more serious crimes if given the chance. Less serious crimes such as theft etc. should also not incur the death penalty.

And, of course, I say legalize dope.

Okay, so how many times does Little Suzie have to die before people start saying that he's unfit for society? Three? Four times? We have to watch a man kill four people before we think that he's unstable? The guy took someone's life! Thats pretty unstable, if you ask me. People like that sicken me to an extent that I rarely get to. I'm a pretty laid bck guy, and not much bothers me, but the notion of murder and rape does, and not because I am afraid of it happening to me, but because I am afraid of it happening to those I'm close to. I don't think anyone should be able to do that, and get away with serving a jail sentence. It should be capitol punishment all the way. You commited assualt on someone? Well, your gett four lashes with a awhip, thena minimum time spent of 5 years, with periodic lashings throughout the sentece. Barbaric? Not really. If this makes me sound sound cynical, or brutal, then so be it, but like Weasel, I'm out here to protect people I love, not stand by while someone rapes/murders them, and walks in fifteen.

I get the impression that different people are focusing on different problems here. We need to ask ourselves: What do we want to achive? Justice? Revenge? A good society? For whom?

Whereas it may satisfy our lust for revenge to execute a murderer, and it is also less expensive than life time imprisonement, it has been demonstrated over and over again that degree of punishment has no correlation with occurence of crime when we talk about severe violent crimes. So if capital punishment does not decrease the crime rate, the only rational reason to have it, is because it is cheaper. @Weasel, Aegis, Xandax and others who are pro death penalty - why is it justice that society kills a killer if this has no long-term effects? An eye for an eye - ie, double the pain, is that justice? If somebody kills my child, does my child become more alive because the murder is killed too? No - I think this is about revenge, not making society better. And then we must ask ourselves, is the satisfaction of personal revenge worth the risk of killing innocent people. I am against death penalty for the simple reason that the legal system is imperfect. Death is irreversible. The risk of killing an innocent person weights heavier than the need for personal revenge IMO.

Hey guys, you write faster than I can read!!
I missed part of the discussion, anyway I ENTIRELY agree with C-Elegans - after the rage moment.

Innocents executed... this is the worst thing I can think about!
And yet, even murdering a murderer, somehow it's wrong...
Come to mind Gandalf's words, we cannot resurrect the brave, and so we should be careful in distribute death to the evil ones...

What I was (maybe) trying to say, is that those type of criminals
should REALLY never breath the open air again.
And here at least, I guarantee it, it's not true!
The people I spoke of should be taken to an isolated cellar, and THE KEYS THROWN AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!
But justice doesn't work this way........
Even without considering all the discounts, "Prison for life" here in Italy is AUTOMATICALLY converted to 30 years!!
But... why?!?!?!?!?!
We said prison for life, no? So be it!!!!

Originally posted by Littiz
Even without considering all the discounts, "Prison for life" here in Italy is AUTOMATICALLY converted to 30 years!!
But... why?!?!?!?!?!
We said prison for life, no? So be it!!!!

It is similar in Sweden, (Astafas knows this better, he is a lawyer so he might correct me), life inprisonment is never more than 25 years, except in a few rare cases of high treason crimes against the state. IMO life imprisonment should mean life, not a pre-set amount of years.

1.5 weeks ago, I was at a PhD dissertation in forensic psychiatry (criminology). One of the problems that was discussed, is that 50% of all crimes are committed by "ordinary" people, people who occationally commits a one-time crime but does not continue to act according to a pattern of crimes. These people are the ones who feel remorse and who you can rehabilitate. The other 50% of crimes are committed by persons who recurrent criminals. These are the people society doesn't know what to do with. Many get worse in prison, they will just continue to commit crimes, often more and more severe crimes. Others are smart and lucky enough to never get caught. There is few rehabilitation programs that have proven successful, and those that have, are considered to expensive to use. In this group, you find serial killers, sadistic rapers/killers and pedophiles. What should be done about this group? Personally, I think they should get the treatment that are available and has been shown to work. Treatment is not a reward - treatment for a psychiatric disorder cannot be viewed as "evil Jimmy the pedophil is getting three meals a day and a shrink who feels sorry for him whereas poor little Suzie is 6 feet below", treatment should be viewed as the best way to make sure the person does not kill or rape again!

It would be less expensive for society if we were able to cure the disorders that lead to this type of behaviour and rehabilitate/habilitate people back to society, getting a job etc, rather than keeping them in jail until they die 50 years later.

Yes, CE is definitely right. Like one of our more influential quotes says: "He who fights monsters should see to it that he does not become one." Killing someone for their crimes (in this case, murder), is the same as murdering in cold blood. The way I see it, some things just can't change. Evil is always where good is, and in some cases all you can do is wish you could make a difference. Plus, change can only happen after an action. The key is to prevent that action, and like I've said before, some of the basic human characteristics (like hate, jealousy, lust, etc.) are constant, and removing that would be like taking pieces of everyone's souls away.

@Weasel, I sympathise with your emotive statement, who knows? If I ever - god forbid - found myself in that position I may well feel the same. But no amount of bitterness or hatred in me would wish another dead, for this I am as sure as I can be right now...I can relate to, and appreciate, your words, but something in me falls short of wanting to take a life... I didn't argue that rehabilitation was the only way, just that the death sentence was not the ultimate deterrant...

IMO it is not the severity of the punishment that deters. Capital punishment offers nothing more than short term savings for the tax payer, and short term satisfaction for the victims families. It does not bring the victim back. It will prevent that criminal acting again, but so could permanent incarceration.

I referenced Hindley and Brady earlier, these two will never be released. Brady is in a high security hospital, the key is as good as thrown away. Hindley appeals on a regular basis, but IMO will never walk free - no home office minister dares to sign the papers...but what makes these two so different? They shocked and sickened the nation, the dying pleas of Lesley Ann Downey were recorded on tape by Hindley, and played to the court room. Each one of those jurors witnessed the death of that little girl...felt personally responsible...that is the difference.

@CE - for me? a good society. But this will be unobtainable for all for the very reasons posted by The Z earlier...if we had a society that cared for individuals, that nurtured to the best of its ability, that did not want for the most basic needs, then justice would be achievable in the sense that all citizens were of equal standing and therefore understanding and accepting of consequences and responsibilities towards their fellow man...I don't think that retribution is the answer, it does not bring back the victim or deter another criminal exacting the same...

@Littiz - in the UK life is 25 years, but rarely ever served...

Just a thought that might be wierd......

Perhaps now that it is theorized you can use DNA to tell if one is more prone to criminal activity, maybe we could take an infant and have scientists study their genes and environment. If their surroundings might provoke violent acts, and their DNA is a positive "more criminal likely" result, than they could send them to a different place, one that can bring up children "properly". Again, just a thought that probably has millions of moral issues that I'm not that inclined to talk about (we already have tonnes of moral 'weight' in this thread already).

Originally posted by C Elegans
So if capital punishment does not decrease the crime rate, the only rational reason to have it, is because it is cheaper. @Weasel, Aegis, Xandax and others who are pro death penalty - why is it justice that society kills a killer if this has no long-term effects? An eye for an eye - ie, double the pain, is that justice? If somebody kills my child, does my child become more alive because the murder is killed too? No - I think this is about revenge, not making society better. And then we must ask ourselves, is the satisfaction of personal revenge worth the risk of killing innocent people. I am against death penalty for the simple reason that the legal system is imperfect. Death is irreversible. The risk of killing an innocent person weights heavier than the need for personal revenge IMO.

NAHH death penalty is the most efficient way. Those psyco are complete waste of time. Why bother to spend resources to rehabilitate them? Example : In China punishment for heavy crimes are extreme. Even though some other countries disagree with them saying about human rights - but IMHO it's the most effective way to control crime rate. Especially to deal with "psyco" Mind you that psyco can "fake" their cureness on rehab and then they rampages again when they are loose on the street.

Do people think that the death penalty should be used in cases of crime other than murder?
Is it because murder just happens to be slightly worse than other crimes, or is it because taking life is absolutely the worst thing that can be done? Pro-death sentencers please think before you agree that taking life is absolutely the worst thing that can be done.
Also, how can we tell when someone is ready to be unleashed into society again? If we can make the judgement that a killer will kill again, why couldn't we tell that he would kill before he did it? Is it because all murderers are guarenteed to murder twice or more? I hope noone thinks so, and I hope that those who propose the death sentence are not so devoid of feeling as to not feel guilty when a man is killed who was completely changed and ready to make a good loving contribution to society.

and an old point which noone ever replied to -

Would the world be better if we just killed everyone, thus having a crime rate of zero?

Originally posted by frogus
Would the world be better if we just killed everyone, thus having a crime rate of zero?

At least one good friend of mine would answer yes to this question.

I am, except in the (extremely specific and, I prefer to think, rare) situations which I outlined earlier, firmly opposed to the death penalty. I just thought I'd clarify my position here.
Killing an innocent should not be tolerated by either criminals or society, and murder, even of murderers, should not be used for revenge.

Originally posted by KidD01
NAHH death penalty is the most efficient way. Those psyco are complete waste of time. Why bother to spend resources to rehabilitate them? Example : In China punishment for heavy crimes are extreme. Even though some other countries disagree with them saying about human rights - but IMHO it's the most effective way to control crime rate. Especially to deal with "psyco" Mind you that psyco can "fake" their cureness on rehab and then they rampages again when they are loose on the street.

How is it more efficient than life imprisonment? Death penalty does not prevent crimes from happening. Regarding China, it is very difficult to evaluate data from China since a lot of things are not recorded, they do not have the same organisation that we have in Europe or US. Executions as well as crimes pass by without ever being recorded, so we can't really know the statistics of China. Besides, the ratio of executions of innocents are believed to be vary large according to Human rights organisations. Do we prefer a society where innocents can get executed by the state, rather than a soceity where innocents can be killed by other citizens? What is the difference? To prevent people from murdering others, you have to kill everyone is advance, just as Frogus says. Currently there is no way to predict who will kill another person during certain circumstances.

There is however some ways to predict who is at large risk of developing into a heavily disturbed murderer, rapist or pedophil, and there are ways to predict who will end up as a recurrent criminals. Problem is, changing the course of those people demand major changes in soceity, and so far very few countries seems to be prepared to pay for this and make such changes.

The "psychos" you refer to Kid, are extremely rare cases. Of course the world is full of incompetent docs, shrinks and social service staff, but a team of well educated, experienced professional should not be fooled by a talanted psychopath. I certainly don't think it is worth the risk off killing innocent people because of the extremely small group of people who might pull of a fake act.

A major issue IMO is that many people have the image of "psycho killers" as totally unpredictable, totally mad, impossible to control, etc. This is not so. We know far more about how people become criminals than most people think. The problem is that politicians mostly ignore the knowledge we have, because you don't win any elections of expensive long term programs that requires major changes is social structures like childcare, education system, social services, health care, etc.

Another major problem is that preventing crime by using the knowledge we have today, would also include problems with the integrity of the individual. Whereas many people would gladly perform tests etc, many other people think this would be a "big brother" society and that the state had too much control and too much information about individuals.

I only see this topic now.

The crime exposed in the first post is shocking, hard and painfull even to imagine such crime.

I don't want to enter the debate now, since it is already in process, and if I do it, I will quote thousands of posts of this 4 pages thread,...

So I'll only state one or two generalist(not directed to anyone) opinions:

I'm totally against death setence, but not hypocrite enough to say that I never think in execute someone by his terrible crime when I was angered. So, in the calm of my actual state, I hope someone stop me or whoever who is able to aply the death sentence(even if is the Justice/Tribunal/State....).
USA is one the country with the most agressive penal system of the first-world; also the major ocorrence of brutal crimes are in USA. Death setence is not the solution, but the revenge/vingance.
Something I don't think its correct.



Prison for Life:
I'm also against. The objective of the prison must ever be to put the criminal back in the society.
Otherwise the death sentence will be also justifyable. All sentences, IMO, must have a pre-stabilshed limit (in Brazil 30 years, 10 with good indole) and consedering the age of the criminal( a 80 year criminal cannot be sentenced in 30 years, because he will die before.).


People is ever thinking in increase the penaltys severity.
How much your country invest in social infra?
Because this is the real solution, the correct way to see less victims.

I know It sound a little idealistic/Gandhi-like/inocent/out-of-reality ideas; but I see beauty and in these opinions, and is ever my objective to give the example in the way of less violence(at least in ideas it is possible to do it).


Just my two cents.( as you use to say)

*Bows @ CE knowledge*

Originally posted by C Elegans
How is it more efficient than life imprisonment? Death penalty does not prevent crimes from happening.

Well I used on extreme ways so pardon my point of view here. Life imprisonment require maximum security prison and other funds to "feed" the prisoner. While death penalty........Ahem just imagine shoot and burry - end of story. (Sorry for the rough picture) But on extreme cases I'd rather pick death penalty than life imprisonment. Imagine how those criminals just lost their freedom but life using the fund of tax payers. Those who deserve to die : Drugs dealers & drugs smugglers, rapists, corruptors, child killers or mollesters. In some cases the state require an iron fist to uphold justice; by sentencing death penalty on extreme cases will make criminals at least think more than twice to commit such a crime. Sometimes criminals would think lightly on the system if the system doesn't give an extreme punishment. That's why I'd prefer death penalty than "the more comfortable" life imprisonment.

Originally posted by C Elegans To prevent people from murdering others, you have to kill everyone is advance, just as Frogus says. Currently there is no way to predict who will kill another person during certain circumstances.

Definately disagree on this one; but I'll agree on self defense

Originally posted by C Elegans The problem is that politicians mostly ignore the knowledge we have, because you don't win any elections of expensive long term programs that requires major changes is social structures like childcare, education system, social services, health care, etc.

I understand the problem. In my countries social welfare is a huge prob - which is why i get your picture here

Prison for Life:
I'm also against. The objective of the prison must ever be to put the criminal back in the society.
Otherwise the death sentence will be also justifyable. All sentences, IMO, must have a pre-stabilshed limit (in Brazil 30 years, 10 with good indole) and consedering the age of the criminal( a 80 year criminal cannot be sentenced in 30 years, because he will die before.).

So you think everyone can be reabilitated?
Even the people I and the others spoke about?

I'm always positive towards people, but I think someone is hopelessly evil... meaning that they lack that minimal sense of humanity that prevents things like those.
You cannot TEACH them to have it... they're just dead inside.
So the problem is really what to do with such criminals???

The biggest issue with this debate is that neither side will never gain the upper hand. We live in a society where muderers and rapists can walk after serving so many years. Until we have a first hand account of whether or not a more aggresive penal system, that uses captiol punishment, can decrease crime, those who are against are automatically on the winning side (note I didn't say on the right side )

Originally posted by Littiz


So you think everyone can be reabilitated?
Even the people I and the others spoke about?

Yes and No.

I was talking about criminals, yes I believe all criminals can be reabilitated. Considering a good system of reeducation with perspectives for those criminals.

, but I think someone is hopelessly evil... meaning that they lack that minimal sense of humanity that prevents things like those.

The crime and the criminal are Social Facts. Happens again and again in all kind of societies. Those you mention above are not Social Facts, but Pathological Facts, some of them can never be reeducated because the delict and the delinquent its not a matter of education or necessity.

In the majority of the legal systems those who cannot be reabilitated can be no longer subject of rights or penaltys.

They are no longer subject of the penal system, but subject of medicine/psycology treatment; Hospice, Asylum...

Some can never be insered in society again, but it is not a prision for life; they will not be affected as criminals, just the victim of a pathology like all other kinds of pathologies.