Breakdown of Feelings towards Capital Punishment
1. Death Penalty Deters Murder
Side one of asomewhat polarized debate on the death penalty. This view cites studies that enforcing the death penalty decreases murder and when it is not enforced, the contrary occurs. This view suggests that there is a significant deterrent effect on would-be murderers. It argues that because what some might call state sanctioned murder is justified by the crimes that warrant a death sentence.
2. Death Penalty Causes Murder
This suggests that criminals become very violent since they are aware that their actions will end them either dead from a pursuit or execution, leaving them with nothing to lose. The law of capital punishment makes it seem that it is okay to kill another human and makes the state seem guilty of this crime, arguing that the government has no authority to deprive even a criminal of life. Also, you get the phenomenon of the state performed suicides that people who describe themselves as "tired of living" who commit a major crime to get executed.
3. More Executions = More Deterrence
Here's what may be seen as the most barbaric ideology towards punishment. This is designed to put such a fear of death into would-be criminals so that crime will decrease. Here it can be argued that the value of a deterrant is lost because it is not employed on a frequent enough basis. However, it could be seen that this has some of the same problems as the first belief.
4. Deterrence Cannot Justify Killing
What may be seen as a more gentle approach, here we explore that no matter how large of a deterring effect that a gruesome execution may produce, it cannot possibly justify the taking of ones life. The government is playing God and deciding what humans cannot be allowed to do. Long term imprisonment is enough punishment and deterrant to criminals since many murders are unplanned anyway.
There's also a few more among which is one that suggests the studies on capital punishment are always inconclusive on this issue and many conflict with eachother on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Onto the criminal justice system as well, no matter how much politicians and officials say they're focusing on "rehabilitation" in prisons, punishment is a factor as well. The criminal justice system was historically designed to get revenge for those who have been wronged and that is still apparent. This may account for the failures of career criminals to rejoin society no matter how much time is spent in an institution. Is it even right for people to be locked up their whole lives for something done at a young age? Are some people beyond repair, so to speak? How can it be improved?
All important ideas I hoped could get us off of the usual course in this subforum. I'm not forcing you to pick anything in the post to reply to either, discuss the morality of the death penalty, your strategy for prisons, whatever; have at it.
1. Death Penalty Deters Murder
Side one of asomewhat polarized debate on the death penalty. This view cites studies that enforcing the death penalty decreases murder and when it is not enforced, the contrary occurs. This view suggests that there is a significant deterrent effect on would-be murderers. It argues that because what some might call state sanctioned murder is justified by the crimes that warrant a death sentence.
2. Death Penalty Causes Murder
This suggests that criminals become very violent since they are aware that their actions will end them either dead from a pursuit or execution, leaving them with nothing to lose. The law of capital punishment makes it seem that it is okay to kill another human and makes the state seem guilty of this crime, arguing that the government has no authority to deprive even a criminal of life. Also, you get the phenomenon of the state performed suicides that people who describe themselves as "tired of living" who commit a major crime to get executed.
3. More Executions = More Deterrence
Here's what may be seen as the most barbaric ideology towards punishment. This is designed to put such a fear of death into would-be criminals so that crime will decrease. Here it can be argued that the value of a deterrant is lost because it is not employed on a frequent enough basis. However, it could be seen that this has some of the same problems as the first belief.
4. Deterrence Cannot Justify Killing
What may be seen as a more gentle approach, here we explore that no matter how large of a deterring effect that a gruesome execution may produce, it cannot possibly justify the taking of ones life. The government is playing God and deciding what humans cannot be allowed to do. Long term imprisonment is enough punishment and deterrant to criminals since many murders are unplanned anyway.
There's also a few more among which is one that suggests the studies on capital punishment are always inconclusive on this issue and many conflict with eachother on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Onto the criminal justice system as well, no matter how much politicians and officials say they're focusing on "rehabilitation" in prisons, punishment is a factor as well. The criminal justice system was historically designed to get revenge for those who have been wronged and that is still apparent. This may account for the failures of career criminals to rejoin society no matter how much time is spent in an institution. Is it even right for people to be locked up their whole lives for something done at a young age? Are some people beyond repair, so to speak? How can it be improved?
All important ideas I hoped could get us off of the usual course in this subforum. I'm not forcing you to pick anything in the post to reply to either, discuss the morality of the death penalty, your strategy for prisons, whatever; have at it.