Close Topic Options

Mandatory Death Sentence - Is This Ever Acceptable - Page 2

Have any of you ever seen the movie 'Brokedown Palace'? It is a movie about two teenagers who travel to Thailand to celebrate graduation. Well they are befriended by an Australian fellow (interestingly enough) who convinces them to take a side-trip to Hong Kong. Turns out he was using them to smuggle drugs into the country and they are caught, and sentenced to some unusual time in prison for such a petty crime. The rest of the movie really gets into the harsh penalties that simple crimes like drug-smuggling will get you in these Asian countries. The reason I pointed it out in this thread is because it mirrors the incident Arvhic attested to earlier on.
Personally, I don't believe there should ever be a mandatory sentence. Each case needs to be tried on individual evidence and circumstances, and relative punishments should be handed down. Do we ever know what happened to the Aussie? Did he manage to get a more lenient penalty, or not?

Acceptable This - Sentence Death Mandatory

Death is murder. It also makes the state crimminals.

Life in prison is a better option, instead of being killed, you get punished appropriatly.

And yes, as a member of Amnesty International, I have always been concerened about Singapore's draconian laws. They are simply not fair and abusive.

Mandatory Death Sentence - Is This Ever Acceptable History & Civil Business Politics

Isn't punishment designed to correct behavior? How does life in prison change behavior?

That brings up a good question, though. How does a death penalty change behavior? Most proponents of a death penalty agree that a promise of a death penalty is a deterrent towards some forms of crime. Personally, I believe that.

Many other people, particularly Amnesty International, disagree with that. I can understand their point of view.

However, that point of view does not explain how or why society must foot the bill for up to 80 years of a violent criminal being kept in prison. It also does not explain why the survivors of violent crime should suffer, knowing that the murderer is still alive, while their family members are not.

Finally, I don't know that Amnesty International has ever addressed the fact that violent criminals CAN, and occasionally DO escape, and commit more violent crimes. Also, due to overcrowding, frequently when life in prison means a parole is possible, those violent criminals are paroled, and commit violent crimes again, including murder. If the death penalty was applied to them, as a mandatory measure, those monsters cannot cause more death and mayhem.

So, what is the alternative? Personally, I believe that a death sentence is the best answer for predatory and heinous violent criminals, especially those who have murdered innocent children, mass murderers, etc. Make absolutely sure that they can NEVER, EVER do something like that again! How does Amnesty International assure that? As far as I know, they are all for the rights of the criminal, not for the rights of society to exist without the monsters prowling within it.

Singapore makes sure that these things AREN'T a problem there. The violent criminal who has been killed certainly won't murder again.

Page 2 Acceptable This - Sentence Death Mandatory

I couldn't have summed it up better if I'd tried!

I believe that there are certain crimes that would warrant the death penalty, but I don't believe that drug smuggling should be one of them. I don't believe in drugs, or like the idea of somebody making a fortune out of other peoples misery, but to my mind, there are far more heinous crimes that call for this type of punishment.

Acceptable This - Sentence Death Mandatory

My personal opinion is that the death sentence, no matter what the justification is, is fundamentally hypocritical.

Mandatory Death Sentence - Is This Ever Acceptable

I am somewhat torn by this issue. On one hand, I don't have a better way to deal with perpetual violent criminals. So if you ask me what else we should do that would WORK, I don't have an answer. Prison does not reform people, it is a fundamentally flawed system. Part of that problem is flooding the prisons with non-violent criminals like pot users, its just to much to handle. On the other hand, I am fundamentally opposed to the death sentence. Killing people because they kill people is hypocritical and makes no sense. Dying is an escape, not a punishment, and killing because they kill is wrong in my opinion. I would outlaw the death penalty, at least mandatory death sentences, if I could.

Mandatory Death Sentence - This Acceptable - Page 2

I think harsh prison sentencing is the right way to tackle such crimes, but I think the problem is deeper than this.

At face value, we have a problem of criminality and of punishment, why not attempt to tackle the causes of crime, instead or waiting for crime to happen and then punish it? I fully understand the need for retribution, but surely rehabilitation is also a major part of punishment, so tackling the problems and causes early on can help prevent a lot of this!

Mandatory Death Sentence - This Acceptable Politics Business Civil & History - Page 2

I like what you said and agree with all of it. Problem is that we don't have a single working rehabilitation program that works on a large scale. Of course, part of that problem is because we criminalize everything we don't like in this country from smoking marijuana to not wearing your seat belt. There can be no rehabilitation from doing something that feels good but doesn't hurt anyone, we do it legally all the time. But I think you are on the right path. In order to end the death penalty, a better rehabilitative process must be thought of to replace it.