S
Shai Gar
For what reasons? Bearing in mind, this:
So, you'd be fine with a few thousand, to a million people being slaughtered like ants, just to get one person?ShaiGar said:
Last edited by a moderator:
The Death Penalty
- Thread starter Quinlan
- Start date
For what reasons? Bearing in mind, this:
Alright. To follow your line of thought.....
If you've committed a crime deserving of the death penalty (this doesn't indicate whether or not you've been committed and sentenced tho. As if you were already in custody the threats to the hundreds, thousands, million are most likely already null. But I am trying to follow your scenario), you would most likely be first concerned with getting away with said crime. Not preparing a wider scope just in case you would be caught and executed. Or holding the said innocents as hostages as insurance of a life sentence rather than a life ending sentence.
However, if you have already committed death penalty crime and figure *shrug* ''Why Not? Might as well be fried for the second offense as for the first!", how would I be able to stop you by promising to withhold a death penalty? Considering you are already going to be convicted and likely sentenced to life, why would you NOT follow through on your threat to kill a untold number? You'd just elevate yourself from a sociopathic criminal to a terrorist...at least in how your actions now define you.
Generally the first desire is to "Get away with it". Not potentially escalating it in order to escape a death penalty. The threat or the possibility of a death penalty has absolutely no weight in the decision process of a criminal committing a crime. It is the level of confidence a criminal has of getting away with his crime that is the determining factor.
If you've committed a crime deserving of the death penalty (this doesn't indicate whether or not you've been committed and sentenced tho. As if you were already in custody the threats to the hundreds, thousands, million are most likely already null. But I am trying to follow your scenario), you would most likely be first concerned with getting away with said crime. Not preparing a wider scope just in case you would be caught and executed. Or holding the said innocents as hostages as insurance of a life sentence rather than a life ending sentence.
However, if you have already committed death penalty crime and figure *shrug* ''Why Not? Might as well be fried for the second offense as for the first!", how would I be able to stop you by promising to withhold a death penalty? Considering you are already going to be convicted and likely sentenced to life, why would you NOT follow through on your threat to kill a untold number? You'd just elevate yourself from a sociopathic criminal to a terrorist...at least in how your actions now define you.
Generally the first desire is to "Get away with it". Not potentially escalating it in order to escape a death penalty. The threat or the possibility of a death penalty has absolutely no weight in the decision process of a criminal committing a crime. It is the level of confidence a criminal has of getting away with his crime that is the determining factor.
Yeah. I noticed Shaz's post before I posted. I am probably now on Shaz's banned listAh well. Wasn't gonna lie about my stance.
So other than some "eye for an eye" mentality, why are you for the death penalty? It's an illogical punishment since it costs more than a life sentence and isn't an effective deterrent, and it kind of makes the United States look like a savage country since most of the rest of the developed world has done away with the death penalty. I honestly can't see any reason for it other than a self righteous desire for vengeance.
S
Shai Gar
No, anybody truly concerned with getting away with a crime plans it from the start, and they tend not to get arrested for the murder. 95% (or more) of solved murders have been instances where the perpetrator was committing the crime in the heat of the moment. They didn't plan anything, they're generally not all that bright. Remember, we're supposed to be talking about an ENTP Rational here. No-one's going to see the shitstorm coming if one of these types goes homocidal.
Yeah, "preparing" isn't really an issue here. These types of thoughts come through our minds all the time. Most of us just don't say them.
bah, too risky and altogether stupid. The U.S. Goverment has a stupid attitude of not negotiating with people who take hostages, so that idea is doomed from the outset, although... not a bad idea for an endgame, where you execute all the hostages by proxy, using proximity sensors tied to bombs strapped to the hostages, and aim the proximity sensors in places where the police might try to storm through.
Having the death penalty completely off the table, means that you're going to give a maximum of 30 years in prison, with an average of 15 years relative seclusion. While this might be uncomfortable for some, it's also survivable. People can turn their lives around in prison, just the same as how (as has already been mentioned in this thread) people on death row find peace, people in prison can also find peace.
Life sentences can be LIVED with. You can escape, you can bribe your way out, you can live a nice life in gaol, and you can continue to learn, gaining degrees whilst in gaol. In any case, Life sentences are rarely for the term of your natural life as they are in the northern territory in australia (changing as well). "Life" tends to be 10 - 20 years in the slammer.
Nope, it'd make me a mass murderer, not a terrorist. Easy to understand since your government likes to throw that word around without any real definition. However the US Government gave terrorism a real definition years and years ago in what is known as the US Code, it's also repeatedly ignored.
US Code said:
Since it wouldn't fulfill the (B) qualifications it's not terrorism.
Yes, but to be fair to what I said, I said, "a person like me". Also, I never said anything about escaping the death penalty, I said taking a few million out with me since they're going to try kill me anyway.
Actually no, the only crime for which the death penalty applies in the US is murder. The overwhelming majority of murders are take place in the heat of the moment with NO THOUGHT AT ALL given to getting away with it.
Silent, for the use of Tin Tin as a humorous retort you just gained a zillion cool points from me
hee, it's from 4chan. You gained 9001 cool points from me SH for using it
Last edited by a moderator:
In that case Shai you totally set me up for failure in replying to your original post. You never specified your hypothetical crime was going to take place in Australia rather than in the US (which is my mental state of mind).
And it is murder in the First Degree (here in the US) that can earn one the death penalty.
Section 1111. Murder
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice
aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or
any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated
killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to
perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason,
espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child
abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or
practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or
perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously
to effect the death of any human being other than him who is
killed, is murder in the first degree.
Now depending on the original crime...which you haven't delineated for me. A life sentence doesn't necessarily mean you are getting out after 30 years. You could (most likely would) be convicted of several offenses in connection to your original crime, and then serve those terms consecutively. Still possibly putting your total prison sentence to the end of your natural life.
Of course these days, it it probably pointless to even count on that since the DA would rather you take a plea bargain than actually give you the full sentencing you deserve.
Yeah, I suppose naming you a terrorist wasn't correct based on the US defination of domestic terrorism. Mass murderer will do just fine
And it is murder in the First Degree (here in the US) that can earn one the death penalty.
Section 1111. Murder
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice
aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or
any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated
killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to
perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason,
espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child
abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or
practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or
perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously
to effect the death of any human being other than him who is
killed, is murder in the first degree.
Now depending on the original crime...which you haven't delineated for me. A life sentence doesn't necessarily mean you are getting out after 30 years. You could (most likely would) be convicted of several offenses in connection to your original crime, and then serve those terms consecutively. Still possibly putting your total prison sentence to the end of your natural life.
Of course these days, it it probably pointless to even count on that since the DA would rather you take a plea bargain than actually give you the full sentencing you deserve.
Yeah, I suppose naming you a terrorist wasn't correct based on the US defination of domestic terrorism. Mass murderer will do just fine
S
Shai Gar
How did I specify Australia even slightly?
Murder is the only death penalty crime in the USA isn't it? It'd have to be that crime.
Murder is the only death penalty crime in the USA isn't it? It'd have to be that crime.
Last edited by a moderator:
Death penalty laws vary by state in the United States. In some states you can be put to death simply for conspiracy to commit murder even if nobody dies. However, treason is still punishable by death on the federal level.
Is alcyone ignoring me?
S
Shai Gar
I am against the death penalty for many reasons. In addition to what has been said before, the death penalty makes the justice system hypocritical. I don't really agree with the "eye for an eye" concept (maybe from the constant "two wrongs don't make a right" speech I've received from my parents when I was a kid). It doesn't make sense to me to show that something is wrong by doing the same to them. I also believe that the death penalty is an easy way out for those who don't want to deal with the guilt for years in prison.
Like what was stated before, many people can change in prison and become an asset to contributing the community eventually.
Like what was stated before, many people can change in prison and become an asset to contributing the community eventually.
I am not ignoring you Satya, but articulating my position on the death penalty is on my list of things to write about (a month of housework and not writing has left a backlog of mental chatter). I want to post a thoughtful and articulate answer for you. Then you can tear into me. I won't forget you!