I thought the whole point of this thread was about whether rape warrants death?
Oh, well. Guess I brought up murder in my post. Anyway, if that violent stabbing or beating results in death, and the individual perpetrating the crime does so without remorse, and will continue to do so without remorse, possibly resulting in the violent deaths of others, get rid of them. If the person is a threat to society, has no redeeming value, and will not be permitted to contribute to society, what is the point of their existence? And before we go there, of course I can’t determine, nor can anyone else, the value of anyone’s life to society of whether or not they have redeeming value. Which is why I have repeatedly admitted that my views are impractical in the real world.
Why not? I have never understood why attempted murder doesn’t have the same penalty as actual murder. Should it be to the criminal’s benefit that either, they’re not very good at committing murder or that the victim was lucky enough to have survived the attack?
It highly varies from training school to training school. For service dogs, we have placed some with children as young as 10 years old. There are guide-dog schools that will place a dog with a young adult, but most will wait until the young person is at least 18 years old. The person needs to be able to care for and work with the dog - and with the blind, it takes a lot of self confidence and control to let yourself be guided by a dog
Waiting lists can be long - so we recommend that people sign up even before they are eligible to receive a guide dog.
That said - some service dog schools will train guides (it’s a different process than service work) for young people on a case by case basis.
I didn’t ask about murderers. I asked about violent stabbings and beatings, which I probably should’ve specified that the victim does not die from.
Should a person who commits a violent stabbing or beating from which the victim does not die, and is likely to commit such violent stabbings or beatings in the future, be executed for this?
I see no reason why they shouldn’t be executed for this, even if the beating or stabbing doesn’t result in death. If a person stabs or beats someone else, he (or she, for that matter) does so knowing that there is the potential that that will result in death. If you don’t kill the criminal, there are two things which will probably happen:
They’ll stay in jail for the rest of their lives.
They’ll get out of jail, do it again, get put back in jail, rinse, repeat.
In both situations, I see no reason to keep that person alive. They will never leave jail. As far as society is considered, they no longer exist except as a number. They don’t contribute to society, they aren’t even in society. There is no purpose for their existence - they don’t enrich anyone’s life, monetarily, emotionally or otherwise. They have no potential to ever again enrich anyone’s life, monetarily, emotionally, or otherwise. To keep such a person alive is completely inefficient and without purpose.
If someone can’t function in society - ever - because they are so violent, so uncaring, and human life means so little to them, that’s where I draw the line. If someone can be rehabilitated, can eventually contribute, and can guarantee with absolute certainty that they will never rape or murder someone again, fine, rehabilitate them and give them a second chance. I was under the impression that the American prison system was originally developed with the express purpose of rehabilitating the prisoners. If they can’t be rehabilitated, they should be eliminated. There’s no place for them.
However, for the zillionth time, it’s not for me to determine if someone can or cannot be rehabilitated.
Out of curiosity, exactly what are you trying to accomplish by asking about all the different scenarios? Are you asking because you’re sincerely curious?
I’m asking because there are apparently people who believe that the death penalty should apply to rape but not other serious assaults and I want to know why rape is so ‘different’ in that regard.
Whilst not condoning rape or violent crime in any way, this is abhorrent, mind-boggling nonsense, with the greatest respect.
Its not for the government to determine whether or not there is any purpose to a person’s existence solely on the basis that a person is in prison and then simply do away with the person. “I see no reason to keep that person alive”? OMG. Whats it to you if the person remains alive but imprisoned? “They have no potential to ever again enrich anyone’s life”? Complete rubbish. How would you know?
“To keep such a person alive is completely inefficient and without purpose”? Please tell me you’re joking. This is so offensive and insane I don’t know where to begin. Isn’t it the criminal’s prerogative to decide whether or not their is any “point to [his/her] existence”?
Um, you have to be alive to prove that you are capable of rehabilitation. That opportunity is kinda lost post-execution. Think about it.
Well, why don’t all rapists just go ahead and kill their victims anyway, to keep them from talking? Why don’t muggers kill everyone they want to rob, so they won’t talk?
What does being “civilized” have to do with it? Rome was a great civilization, and they executed people. Hell, modern Japan still has the death penalty, and they’re one of the most peaceful and prosperous nations on the planet.
The OP asked “do rapists deserve death?” And I said “yes.” I think that anyone guilty of rape deserves to suffer for what they’ve done. Just like I wish every evildoer could be identified and captured. I know the justice system isn’t 100% perfect. But that’s not what I’m talking about—I’m just saying what I think should happen to rapists.
He/she already did. He/she chose to rape someone; to commit a crime so considered horrific that society wants to keep them in a cage for the rest of their lives. They’ve made themselves a danger to the rest of humankind. They didn’t have to commit rape, but they did. What difference does it make if society keeps them caged and fed for fifty years, or if they die tomorrow?
Have you read ANY of my posts at all besides this one? Probably not. In that case, I will reiterate for the nth time - it’s NOT for me to decide, that’s why I know my stance is not a practical one for the real world. If you’re going to attack what I say, at least read my past posts. Thanks so much.
I think the criminal has already proven quite beyond doubt that they are incapable of functioning in society. The original idea behind the American prison system was to rehabilitate, not to serve as a purgatory where life-long criminals go to be held until death. The original idea was that they would stay there in a CORRECTIONAL facility until such time as they could be released to society once more. If someone’s behavior cannot be corrected, and they will continue to kill, rape or mutilate people if they get out, please give me a logical explanation why their life should mean anything, anything AT ALL to me.
And no, my stance is not “insane.” It’s cold-blooded, yes. But not unreasonable. In fact, it’s quite logical and makes quite a bit of emotional and financial sense. Here you have someone who is so corrupted that they will murder or rape or mutilate without remorse again and again. If you had a dog that continually mauled people, you’d put it down right? How’s this different? I honestly don’t think that the argument, “Oh, but they’re human,” holds any water here. What form their bodies take is no longer an issue. They’re a danger to anyone they encounter. It’s that simple: society is an animal construct that allows any group of animals to live peacefully (or somewhat) together. Society has rules. Our rules happen to include not killing people, not raping them, and not mutilating them. If you’re given multiple chances to play by the rules and can’t contribute, but have sufficiently proven that you’re just not able nor will you EVER be able, you’re removed. Permanently, and in a manner that save a lot of people a lot of emotional strain caused by fear and anger, and in a manner that happens to save a lot of people a lot of money.
Again, read my other posts. I have, time and again, admitted that this isn’t a practical solution. Calling me insane and offensive and telling me to “Think about it” isn’t going to change my mind. I have thought about it for quite some time, which is why I know it’s not a good solution, not in the real world. And I recognize that no one on this earth has the authority to determine if someone is rehabilitated or not. How 'bout this? You read my posts, then you think about it.
Yes. What is becoming increasingly clear from your posts to this thread is that you are not capable of making any sense. For this reason, I am going to quit banging my head up aainst the brick wall trying to have a rational discussion with you on this topic. Its evidently too much to ask of you that you simply make some objective sense in relation to this issue.
How?
Start making sense or quit pretending you have any useful contribution to any debate. Are you having trouble grasping the notion that a criminal needs to be alive ie not executed in order to have chance to prove his behaviour can be corrected, that he can be rehabilitated. Do you comprehend that execution is the denial of the opportunity to rehabilitate oneself?
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Firstly, we were supposed to be having a debate about what sentence is appropriate for rapists. It is not reasonable to suggest that cold-bloodedness and emotion should form part of sentencing of criminals.
Secondly, please stop deluding yourself that executing criminals saves money. Executing criminals does not save money. Quite the opposite, in fact. Some very basic googling on the point should show you what crap you are talking there.
Sorry, who are you talking about? All criminals? Are all rapists and murderers so corrupt that they will murder or rape or mutilate without remorse again and again? Do you have some evidence of this?
I understand. You have less respect for human life than I do. This may have something to do with living in a society that approves of the death penalty - that tends to reinforce the notion that the taking of human life isn’t that big a deal, that only some lives are sacred. I pity you.
For the nth time, EXECUTING PEOPLE DOES NOT SAVE MONEY. It costs a lot of people many times more to execute somebody than it does to house him in prison for the rest of his life.
I wonder what you see as not being “practical” about your “kill 'em all” solution to sentencing of criminals.
Also, think about this. Murder rates more highly than serious assault, rape and torture as a crime in western society. Would you be prepared to accept state-sanctioned rape and torture of criminals in sentencing? If not, how is it OK for the state to kill them? Surely if it is OK to kill criminals, it is less offensive to you to simply gouge their eyes out, extinguish cigarettes in their faces, pull their teeth out with pliers, break their fingers etc?
buns, congratulations, you have officially proven yourself incapable of defending your own position. You provided me with but one cite, and, other than that, simply responded to my posts by “wrong, wrong, wrong” or by calling me irrational without explaining to me why my stance is irrational. If you have any argument, valid or invalid (I have yet to see an argument of any kind here as to why I am wrong), please provide one. You see, darling, the point of debate is that you say, “I think you’re wrong, and here is why: [reason x, reason y, reason z].” To which I calmly respond with, “Hmmm, I see your point; however, for these reasons, I think you’re inaccurate.” We go through it, then at the end, either say, “Wow, that’s interesting. You know, you do have a point there.” or “I’m sorry, I just can’t agree with you.” According to google definition, a debate involves careful thinking, weighing your words, then presenting them in a convincing manner.
So far, I have “you’re insane, offensive and wrong.” That’s not debate. Telling me I’m wrong and then insulting me by assuming that I would presume to have the authority to call someone incapable of rehabilitation is really quite laughable. I’ve already told you I realize I don’t have that authority. Your post also tells me that, other than a google cite that proves only one very minor point in your position, all you have to back up your position is emotion. “Wah!” You say, “But that’s baaaddd! You’re crazy. I don’t like you, icky person! I’m not talking to you ever, ever again.” Although it’s quite amusing, it’s really rather pathetic. I have admitted that the death penalty is impractical. It’s expensive as it is now, and killing someone immediately does not, as you have so poorly and offensively stated, provide them with an opportunity to rehabilitate themselves. However, if we are more strict on the number of appeals that we give criminals on death row and only put people we are certain are guilty there (again, an impossibility I have admitted several times) and exterminate them sooner, we should cut out quite a bit of the expense.
Regardless, even if you gave me the reason, “God said ‘thou shalt not kill,’” and I follow that, I would respect your opinion far more than you just telling me I’m nuts. But good luck with that particular method of arguing in the future. Next time you try to convince someone that your position is right by saying, “No, you’re wrong. 'Cause I said you’re wrong. You’re nutty. I’m not talking to you,” you’ll have to let me know how that goes.
Hey, overlyverbose, you might want to do some self-examination before critiquing the debating skills of others.
So, you concede that there are innocent people on death row. And you concede that this will probably continue to be the case. And, presumably, you have enough neurons firing to realize that the innocent people on death row are generally only cleared through the appeals process. And yet you still want people to be “immediately terminated” upon entering death row.
You say “I just wish there were some way to convict someone, conclusively in every single case.” Welcome to the club! I’d also like world harmony, non-polluting automobiles, and trees with leaves made out of Belgian chocolate, but it ain’t gonna happen, so we have to do the best with what we’ve got. In a legal system staffed by human beings, and run under human laws, there are always going to be faults, and the appeals process is one way of attempts to correct the errors that arise from such faults. And, given that the appeals process is not likely to be radically scaled back, especially in death penalty cases, it makes far more financial sense to do away with it altogether.
Yet, despite recognizing all of the salient facts, you continue to call for fewer appeals.
You appear to be taking the moral position that executing some innocent people is acceptable if it saves us some time and money on the guilty ones.
And this issue of a moral position is important. Your criticism of buns fails to recognize that debates such as this often have two separate areas–issues that can be debated in their particulars with regard to things like practicality, and issues that constitute the fundamental moral core of our being, that are often not amenable to very much rational debate. For example, if i believe that taking another human life except in direct self-defense is fundamentally morally wrong, and you believe that it is OK in certain other circumstances, we can try to explain to one another why we hold those views, but it is extremely unlikely that even the most careful argument will change either of our minds. We might be able to comprehend, at some level, why and how the other person holds such a position, but we would not be able to share that position.
You’ve actually contradicted yourself here: which is it, I call for people to be “immediately terminated,” or call for fewer appeals?
And no, I don’t think it’s okay to execute innocent people to save time and money on the guilty ones. That’s why I’ve said this has no practical application in the real world. It’s just not gonna happen because, as you noted earlier (and you noted that I noted), there will ALWAYS be innocents on death row. And it would take far more time and money to go through and weed out every single innocent from the guilty and remove them from that particular path than it would to permit them their appeals.
I think you’re absolutely correct here. It’s difficult to debate something so emotionally loaded; however, I think that it’s important to at least try to remain calm. In any debate, both parties are more likely to listen if neither party is screaming that the other is crazy. Although you and I may not agree, I do appreciate that you’re taking me to task yet not calling me names.
This is my problem with buns’ argument. He/she (sorry, buns, I don’t know your sex) seems to be responding with pure emotion, and does not seem to understand on any level why I would hold this position. I understand buns’ position - it’s not for anyone to decide who has the right to live or die, and rehabilitation does take time, and who am I or who is anyone else to decide what constitutes rehabilitation? Which is why my beliefs are not practical for application in the real world. However, I think for people like Jeffrey Dahmer (an admittedly extreme case), applying the possibility of rehabilitation does not work. But that’s just me.
buns and I have a philosphical difference here. I just wish that he or she would calmly explain his or her philosophical difference without screaming “wrong!” But, I’ve been guilty in the past of doing just such a thing, too, so I guess I’m not the best candidate for throwing stones.
Oops, just realized something. If that quote is from me, it is I who have contradicted myself. To clarify, I’d like to limit, not eliminate the number of appeals available.
Well let us think together !
Let’s suppose that we have some guy and he had sex with a girl. Then the girl decides to accuse him of rape ! What does he do ? How can he prove that he hasn’t raped her ? In the United States a woman’s word alone can put a man in jail. Let us also add death penalty to this and then whenever a guy will have sex with a woman he will be risking his life. Is this really so desirable ? What kind of impact will it have on society ? Why should a woman have a right to kill an innocent man that had sex with her ?
Do you believe that having sex with someone and later accusing them of rape is a pollution and perversion of a pleasurebale and tender act ?
By the way everyone here seems to be very understanding of the trauma that rape victims experience. But has anyone thought of the trauma of a person that has been falsely accused of rape and locked up in jail for something that they didn’t do ? And had their whole life destoyed ?
…
Actually, he doesn’t have to prove that he didn’t 't rape her. The prosecution has to prove that he did. The burden of proof in the American criminal justice system does not fall on the accused, but on the state.
Also, while i don’t spend my spare time following rape cases, i would be rather surprised if it, in fact, the case that “a woman’s word alone can put a man in jail.” Do you have any evidence that a simple accusation, in the absence of any other evidence, is sufficient to convict a man of rape?
