The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
What do you make of it??
Should be allowed for any criminal??, Ones who committed a certain crime?? (e.g serial rape, mass murder), Or is it plain wrong all together??
Explain your answers and discuss
My personal views
Well, on the topic of capital punishment. Well.....I believe only the most serious crimes, like the ones stated above, should be resolved in capital punishment. Capital punishment is the most extreme way to finish a sentence, so it should only be issued to people that have committed seriously bad crimes.
So....your views??
Should be allowed for any criminal??, Ones who committed a certain crime?? (e.g serial rape, mass murder), Or is it plain wrong all together??
Explain your answers and discuss
My personal views
Well, on the topic of capital punishment. Well.....I believe only the most serious crimes, like the ones stated above, should be resolved in capital punishment. Capital punishment is the most extreme way to finish a sentence, so it should only be issued to people that have committed seriously bad crimes.
So....your views??
One from the vaults to cover my opinion on this topic....
My mind has been set thinking along this well trodden path by the ongoing saga of Timothy McVeigh a.k.a. the Oklahoma Bomber. As you may be aware, he is scheduled to be executed on Monday for the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma (being known as the Oklahoma bomber may have given that away to you...) which caused the death of 168 people. Actually, as a side issue, do you remember that incident? Most of America (and the world if we're honest) put the incident down to one of the many extremist groups based in the Middle East. The palpable waves of shock throughout the USA at the discovery that it was an American who looked just like everybody else who had planted the bomb would have been rather amusing were it not for the depth of the xenophobia that it revealed. But that is something for another time...
This is the first federal execution in America for something like 30 years (federal law is sort of like national law whereas state law varies from state to state; several people have been executed under state law, especially in Texas which it may not surprise you to learn had Dubya running it prior to his election as President...) and it has caused something of a stir for a number of reasons. The old debate of "Is this murder sanctioned by the law?" has kicked off in earnest, the possibility of televising the execution itself has also been much discussed and rejected (although it is to be shown over closed circuit TV to the families of his victims; anyone care to take bets as to how long it will take for this footage to debut on the Internet?). We have also, and for me most satisfyingly, had the shortcomings of the FBI quite graphically demonstrated as their failure to disclose thousands of (admittedly non-vital) documents delayed the execution and caused much distress to all concerned.
What interests me in the main is the validity of the death penalty itself. It may (or may not) surprise you to learn that I am very much in favour of the death penalty. Despite my liberal leanings, I think that in certain circumstances, it is fully justified. And the key phrase there is "in certain circumstances"; these circumstances do need further explanation and definition.
In what circumstances can we justify depriving another human being of their life? Whilst it is tempting to say that we could do so for such things as "Being French in a built up area", "Phoning a computer support line without having a clue how a computer works"(you should hear my housemate complain about this...), and "Being a totally mongbrained dimwit". However, as this is a reasonably important subject, I shall approach with something resembling the gravity that it deserves.
Firstly we start with the biggie: Murder. Can we justify the old adage "A life for a life"? I would say that we couldn’t. Man is judged by his fellow man (if you want to get all biblical about it) and man's judgment can be flawed when looking at the evidence available. There are many cases of people being executed for crimes that they did not commit, and I am certainly not advocating a return to that. Nor would I do so for the crime of Rape which, utterly degrading and horrific though it certainly is, has the same potential for miscarriages of justice (if not more so) than murder. As to the current crime that is still punishable by death (treason), this is hopelessly outdated in concept and needs radical overhaul if it is to have any relevance.
Now it may appear that I am going back on what I said earlier in that I have dismissed the main crimes that tend to inspire calls for the return of the death penalty. Well, yes I am dismissing them because most of the appeals for its return on these grounds are formed on the basis of retribution and deterrence. As a deterrent, the death penalty does not work, and I would say that the fact that America continues to have a horrendously high murder rate goes some way to proving that. As a means of retribution...well, I refuse point blank to align myself with the sort of person who bays for the blood of a man condemned. The type of person who *demands* the execution of a criminal (family of the victim excluded) is one step away from lynch mob mentality and as a confirmed humanist, I'd like to think that we all have the potential to evolve away from the darker, reactionary side of our psyche. This sort of attitude (however justified it may be at the time) simply serve to propagate intolerance and hatred.
I personally believe that if there are circumstances that justify the execution of another human being (and I shall detail what I believe they are below) then one should ask for this ultimate sanction with reluctance and with sadness that it is necessary to have a person killed for the good of society. I am paraphrasing Clarence Darrow who expressed this with eloquence that I could only hope to aspire to when he defended the killers Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb in 1924 when I say this. He gave a speech to this effect when summing up his case for not executing the two young men who had committed the savage and senseless murder of a classmate as an intellectual exercise in committing the perfect crime. Both of them were sentenced to life imprisonment despite the frenzied and angry demands for the death penalty by the state. This is how it should be.
As to the types of crime that actually should be punishable by death, my earlier opinions concerning paedophiles will perhaps give you a clue as to what they should be. Basically, truly monstrous and repeatedly committed offences should be punishable. And no, I am not saying that we should keep releasing people until they have committed sufficient crimes to justify execution. I am referring to Serial Killers, Serial Rapists, and Child Sex Offenders. This is a class of criminal that is pathologically and irreversibly compelled to kill, rape, and abuse. There is nothing that we can do to help them, and there is nothing that they can contribute to society other than what we can learn from them through studying them in order to ensure that this cannot happen again. Once this process of study is complete, they should be put to sleep quickly, quietly and painlessly. Timothy McVeigh's death is fast becoming a sideshow, and as long as this remains the case concerning execution, we have no right to call ourselves a civilised society.
My mind has been set thinking along this well trodden path by the ongoing saga of Timothy McVeigh a.k.a. the Oklahoma Bomber. As you may be aware, he is scheduled to be executed on Monday for the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma (being known as the Oklahoma bomber may have given that away to you...) which caused the death of 168 people. Actually, as a side issue, do you remember that incident? Most of America (and the world if we're honest) put the incident down to one of the many extremist groups based in the Middle East. The palpable waves of shock throughout the USA at the discovery that it was an American who looked just like everybody else who had planted the bomb would have been rather amusing were it not for the depth of the xenophobia that it revealed. But that is something for another time...
This is the first federal execution in America for something like 30 years (federal law is sort of like national law whereas state law varies from state to state; several people have been executed under state law, especially in Texas which it may not surprise you to learn had Dubya running it prior to his election as President...) and it has caused something of a stir for a number of reasons. The old debate of "Is this murder sanctioned by the law?" has kicked off in earnest, the possibility of televising the execution itself has also been much discussed and rejected (although it is to be shown over closed circuit TV to the families of his victims; anyone care to take bets as to how long it will take for this footage to debut on the Internet?). We have also, and for me most satisfyingly, had the shortcomings of the FBI quite graphically demonstrated as their failure to disclose thousands of (admittedly non-vital) documents delayed the execution and caused much distress to all concerned.
What interests me in the main is the validity of the death penalty itself. It may (or may not) surprise you to learn that I am very much in favour of the death penalty. Despite my liberal leanings, I think that in certain circumstances, it is fully justified. And the key phrase there is "in certain circumstances"; these circumstances do need further explanation and definition.
In what circumstances can we justify depriving another human being of their life? Whilst it is tempting to say that we could do so for such things as "Being French in a built up area", "Phoning a computer support line without having a clue how a computer works"(you should hear my housemate complain about this...), and "Being a totally mongbrained dimwit". However, as this is a reasonably important subject, I shall approach with something resembling the gravity that it deserves.
Firstly we start with the biggie: Murder. Can we justify the old adage "A life for a life"? I would say that we couldn’t. Man is judged by his fellow man (if you want to get all biblical about it) and man's judgment can be flawed when looking at the evidence available. There are many cases of people being executed for crimes that they did not commit, and I am certainly not advocating a return to that. Nor would I do so for the crime of Rape which, utterly degrading and horrific though it certainly is, has the same potential for miscarriages of justice (if not more so) than murder. As to the current crime that is still punishable by death (treason), this is hopelessly outdated in concept and needs radical overhaul if it is to have any relevance.
Now it may appear that I am going back on what I said earlier in that I have dismissed the main crimes that tend to inspire calls for the return of the death penalty. Well, yes I am dismissing them because most of the appeals for its return on these grounds are formed on the basis of retribution and deterrence. As a deterrent, the death penalty does not work, and I would say that the fact that America continues to have a horrendously high murder rate goes some way to proving that. As a means of retribution...well, I refuse point blank to align myself with the sort of person who bays for the blood of a man condemned. The type of person who *demands* the execution of a criminal (family of the victim excluded) is one step away from lynch mob mentality and as a confirmed humanist, I'd like to think that we all have the potential to evolve away from the darker, reactionary side of our psyche. This sort of attitude (however justified it may be at the time) simply serve to propagate intolerance and hatred.
I personally believe that if there are circumstances that justify the execution of another human being (and I shall detail what I believe they are below) then one should ask for this ultimate sanction with reluctance and with sadness that it is necessary to have a person killed for the good of society. I am paraphrasing Clarence Darrow who expressed this with eloquence that I could only hope to aspire to when he defended the killers Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb in 1924 when I say this. He gave a speech to this effect when summing up his case for not executing the two young men who had committed the savage and senseless murder of a classmate as an intellectual exercise in committing the perfect crime. Both of them were sentenced to life imprisonment despite the frenzied and angry demands for the death penalty by the state. This is how it should be.
As to the types of crime that actually should be punishable by death, my earlier opinions concerning paedophiles will perhaps give you a clue as to what they should be. Basically, truly monstrous and repeatedly committed offences should be punishable. And no, I am not saying that we should keep releasing people until they have committed sufficient crimes to justify execution. I am referring to Serial Killers, Serial Rapists, and Child Sex Offenders. This is a class of criminal that is pathologically and irreversibly compelled to kill, rape, and abuse. There is nothing that we can do to help them, and there is nothing that they can contribute to society other than what we can learn from them through studying them in order to ensure that this cannot happen again. Once this process of study is complete, they should be put to sleep quickly, quietly and painlessly. Timothy McVeigh's death is fast becoming a sideshow, and as long as this remains the case concerning execution, we have no right to call ourselves a civilised society.
I don't believe we have a foolproof judgement system, and I sometimes find it difficult to see how -anyone- can pass judged on a human being. All the same, you cannot take away someone's life, no matter what.
The state should not have the right to kill an individual, imo.
I do think all shoplifters should be painted orange
Hmm. I figure capital punishment can be as bad as, better, or worse than any other form of punishment. It just depends on the severity of its use.
I imagine virtually all offenders would 'prefer' a mild beating to 6 months inside.
And if you consider wasting half a year of your life, killing time in a cell, to be significantly worse than what most prisoners would get from their 'free' lives, imprisonment has to look 'crueler' than the beating.
Meanwhile loads of people who are against the death penalty argue that it's the 'easy way out', and that it's tougher that they live out their lives having to face what they've done, they obviously see the death penalty as the more 'humane' option.
Which obviously contradicts the usual anti-dp argument that it's barbaric and malicious.
I imagine virtually all offenders would 'prefer' a mild beating to 6 months inside.
And if you consider wasting half a year of your life, killing time in a cell, to be significantly worse than what most prisoners would get from their 'free' lives, imprisonment has to look 'crueler' than the beating.
Meanwhile loads of people who are against the death penalty argue that it's the 'easy way out', and that it's tougher that they live out their lives having to face what they've done, they obviously see the death penalty as the more 'humane' option.
Which obviously contradicts the usual anti-dp argument that it's barbaric and malicious.
I believe eveyone should be kicked in the nuts.
Especially women.
Especially women.
Personally, I find capital punishment pretty distressing, and I wouldn't be sad if it was abolished from the face of the earth, even though that won't happen. I feel that murderers should be given an opportunity to learn from their mistakes, which they cannot do being dead, just a corpse in a hole some place. For some it might even be more painful having to live their lives in a cell, with one brick wall to stare at and recall how vile they have acted.
Some people seem to argue for bringing back capital punishment because supposedly a bigger deterrent from murder than imprisonment. Amazingly enough it appears to work the other way around, when analysing statistics. I have heard that the murder rate in Britain has dropped substantially since the early 1970's, when capital punishment was completely abolished.
Then, like E_B said, what about these people already falsely killed off? A royal pardon isn't going to bring them back.
Some people seem to argue for bringing back capital punishment because supposedly a bigger deterrent from murder than imprisonment. Amazingly enough it appears to work the other way around, when analysing statistics. I have heard that the murder rate in Britain has dropped substantially since the early 1970's, when capital punishment was completely abolished.
Then, like E_B said, what about these people already falsely killed off? A royal pardon isn't going to bring them back.
What if someone is falsely convicted of a serious crime?
What do you make of it??
Should be allowed for any criminal??, Ones who committed a certain crime?? (e.g serial rape, mass murder), Or is it plain wrong all together??
Explain your answers and discuss
My personal views
Well, on the topic of capital punishment. Well.....I believe only the most serious crimes, like the ones stated above, should be resolved in capital punishment. Capital punishment is the most extreme way to finish a sentence, so it should only be issued to people that have committed seriously bad crimes.
So....your views??
Should be allowed for any criminal??, Ones who committed a certain crime?? (e.g serial rape, mass murder), Or is it plain wrong all together??
Explain your answers and discuss
My personal views
Well, on the topic of capital punishment. Well.....I believe only the most serious crimes, like the ones stated above, should be resolved in capital punishment. Capital punishment is the most extreme way to finish a sentence, so it should only be issued to people that have committed seriously bad crimes.
So....your views??