Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums

yas · Joined: 10 May 2003 Posts: 10

Hello!My name is Yas. I'm a teacher in Hyogo Prefecture, Japan.
My students are now having debate lesson. The following is their
opinions about life imprisonment and death penalty. I hope they will write back your reactions.

<Death punishment--side>
1.Some criminals can't be reformed. The death penalty is the only PUNISHMENT for hardened criminals such as Bin Laden or Saddam
Hussein or Asahara Shokou.
I have never seen the Movie of "Green Mile".
The innocent black man was given death punishment. It is a
problem concerning racial discrimination not a death penalty problem.(Y.N.)

2.A victim's family can feel relieved if the criminal is punished by death penalty. because he isn't alive.(M.G.)

3.It is natural for a victim's family to feel relieved by the criminal's death .
With the criminal's death victim' s family feel that their grudge is payed off.
And everyone can feel safe. What if the criminal escapes from the prison?
The criminal may commit a crime again. (Like Doctor Hannival in the movie of "The Silence of the Lamb")
The death penalty is a deterrent to another crimes. People have the idea
that if they commit murder, they will receive death penalty and crimes will decrease.(N.T.)

4.The criminla's family want the criminal to die. Because his death is the best atonement.(Y.Y.)

<Life Impriosnment--side>
5.There is a possibililty of wrong judge. For example, the black man with healing power was innocent but he was killed.(In the movie of but he was killed.(In the movie of "The Green Mile")
The victim's familly won't be happy if the criminal dies.(Y.Y.)

6.The death penalty is not a deterent. Because the crime rate increases rather than decreases. Even if the criminal is executed, it wouold not be an answer. is executed, it would not be an answer.(A.T.)

7.Although some have committed quite stupid crimes, they will have human rights. If one is innocent, we become criminals by giving him death penalty by taking his life and his future.
We should think about executioner's conscience. Are they glad to kill criminals? They have to see them from the beginning to end. It is not good
for their mental health. They will be frustrated.
The victim's life never come back to life even if he was given death peanlty.(M.Y.)

8.If a murderer lives, he may be able to compensate for a crime he committed. If he lives, he may realize the weight of his crime. We should respect life. Criminals also have families who feel sad.(E.M.)

9.Death penalty is not necessary. What is necessary is the counseling of the victim's family.(M.M. )

Crexis · Joined: 12 May 2003 Posts: 11 Location: Belgium

People who kill someone should be killed.
People who rape someone should be raped.
People who steal something should pay the cost of the thing they stole.
_________________
UT OWNZ

Ricardo · Joined: 12 May 2003 Posts: 3

I think some dude who rapes a girl should be assraped and then let him eat his own *beep* and then drill his ass apart with some fancy powerdrill....... And I think more people should be killed in china, there way 2 many people there! And they use pandas for viagra...
So let the pandas live and the chinies *beep* die....

ilya · Joined: 01 Apr 2003 Posts: 74

Crexis, who will rape rapers?

mjbinsanjose · Joined: 08 May 2003 Posts: 13

I think that the answer to this question would depend upon the ethical perspective that you use to make your decision.
For instance if you decided to base your decision on the Utilitarian perspective you would look for the solution that creates the most positive good for all concerned. The concerned include society at large, the murderer, the families of the murder victim, etc. The decision procedure would be to consider all concerned, consider all alternatives, and calculate the overall good of each alternative for all concerned parties.

Another alternative ethical perspective to use would be to base your decision on Rule Utalitarianism. In that case, you would do the action that is in accord with the rule which would, if followed, create more positive good than any alternative good.

Under the ethical perspective formulated by Immanuel Kant, we believe in treating everyone with respect. People are to be treated as ends, and not mere means. All humans are morally equal. We adopt rules that we believe should apply to every human.

Under the ethical perspective of moral rights, we believe that all moral creatures are entitled to basic rights. These rights are also claims that society should enforce. Rights also imply duties. This means that if someone has a right to something, than we have an obligation to not interfere with them exercising this right. ( negative rights view ). Some would believe that this is too low of a standard. they would argue that if someone has a right to something, than society must intervene to insure their rights are protected ( positive rightd view ). Moral rights take precedent over legal rights. Moral rights cannot be given up, or overridden. If anyone has a right to something, than every other moral creature has the same right to it.

Under the ethical perspective of virtues/vices/care we look for characteristics that make one a good citizen, or member of a community. We direct our moral attention to others. we are open to sympathetic understanding, we are aware of the need to sustain and perserve networks of care, we act on the basis of this process. A shortcut to action would be: what would my ideal caring self do?

Under the ethical perspective formulated by John Rawls, we look to formulate rules in which the least well off members of society are better off.

In certain religious or philosophical based governments, you would look at the teachings of Confucius, Buddha, Jesus, or Mohammed to decide what to do.

Each of these ethical procedures will provide satisfactory solutions. However someone who has a different persective about how to make an ethical decision might find your solution abhorrant.

You will never be able to satisfy everyone.
_________________
A future English teacher from California.

obelix · Joined: 09 Feb 2003 Posts: 304

So the death penalty is the answer.
It satisfies the concept of justice - the killer is killed.
It gets rid of the threat to the sheep from the wolf and it is much more cost effective and humane than locking the wolf up in a cage until he dies.
The end result is the same - the wolf dies.
All the psychobabble in the world does not change that.

Diana · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 494 Location: Guam, USA

I approve executing terrorists or anyone caught attempting suicide bombing. Besides, they want to die anyway, so killing them should not be a problem.

ilya · Joined: 01 Apr 2003 Posts: 74

Of course like all people with dangerous weapon terrorists should be killed when they commit a crime. Of course terrorists who kill innocent people are animals. But how cynically you wrote this "killing them should not be a problem". I can`t believe that you are a woman. I`m shocked with your words.

Diana · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 494 Location: Guam, USA

ilya · Joined: 01 Apr 2003 Posts: 74

If you want to have the same feelings as they have, you are welcome.

Diana · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Posts: 494 Location: Guam, USA

Huh? What makes you think I have the same feelings as the terrorists, Ilya? And why are you always picking on me? Obelix agrees that killers should be killed. I agree with that too. The terrorists are killers so they should be killed. Even you agree with that. So, there is no argument. But it seems that you are picking on me for some reason! What's wrong with you?

yas · Joined: 10 May 2003 Posts: 10

Hello, this is Yas talking! Thank you very much for your reply. As Mibinsasanjose, future English teacher , mentioned , there are two ways
of looking at things; One way of looking at things is that human being iｓ
eｓsentially born good. Other way is that human being is born evil. So our own perspective is apt to decide our stance......lifetime imprisonment side or death penalty side.

It seems to me that Crex and Oblix take the stance of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Even the terrible, bad murderer has something
good in his heart, I think. I do want to believe in goodness of human nature. When I read the Bible , I found there are two ways of looking at
things. "Thou shalt not kill!"(One of Ten Commendments) and an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. But the new testament is different.

Now, could you allow me to add my students' opinions?

<Death penalty--side>
(HS)I compeletely agree with No3's opinion. Death penalty is punishment
that stops criminals from commiting crimes again, It is the most effective
deterrent.

(MM)The death penalty is necessary. Because it is deterrent for the crime. Nothing is more essential than life. In so far as criminals have life, they have their future. If I were a victim's family member, I couldn't allow that they have their future. But there is a possibility of a wrong judgement. So the death penalty is must be given carefully.;

(MaM)Death penalty is necessary. Murderers didn't know the exact meaning of life, so they killed life. They think that life is not so important.
If a murderer is in prison, he casn eat , sleep, and of course live. And these things can't be done to the victim. So life imprisonment is too generous for me to accept.

<Life Imprisonment ----side>
(SA)I oppose the penalty.　Ｏｎｅ　ｒｅａｓｏｎ　ｉｓ　ｔｈａｔ　ｉｔ　ｉｓ　ｏｌｄ－ｆａｓｈｉｏｎｅｄ、
ｂｅｃａｕｓｅ　ｍｏｓｔ　ａｄｖａｎｃｅｄ　ｎａｔｉｏｎｓ　（ｓｕｃｈ　ａｓ　Ｆｒａｎｃｅ，　Ｅｎｇｌａｎｄ，　
Ｃａｎａｄａ，ａｎｄ　ｓｏ　ｏｎ　，．．ｌ．．）　ｈａｖｅ　ａｌｒｅａｄｙ　ａｂｏｌｉｓｈｅｄ　ｉｔ．　Ｍａｎｙ　
ｙｅａｒｓ　ｈａｖｅ　　ｐａｓｓｅｄ　ｓｉｎｃｅ　ｔｈｅ　ｅｎｆｏｒｃｅｍｅｎｔ　ｏｆ　�ａｎ　ｅｙｅ　ｆｏｒ　ａｎ　
ｅｙｅ．�　Ａｎｏｔｈｅｒ　ｒｅａｓｏｎ　ｉｓ　ｔｈａｔ　Ｉ　ｄｏｎ�ｔ　ｔｈｉｎｋ　ｔｈａｔ　ｄｅａｔｈ　ｉｓ　ｔｈｅ　
ｇｒｅａｔｅｓｔ　ｓｕｆｆｅｒｉｎｇ．　Ｆｏｒ　ｅｘａｍｐｌｅ　Ｂｉｎ　Ｌａｄｅｎ　ｔｈｉｎｋｓ　ｏｆ　ｈｉｍｓｅｌｆ　ａｓ　ａ
ｍａｒｔｙｒ　ａｎｄ　ｄｅａｔｈ　ｐｅｎａｌｔｙ　ｗｉｌｌ　ｂｒｉｎｇ　ｈｉｍ　ｐｌｅａｓｕｒｅ．Ｔｈｅ　ｔｈｉｒｄ　ｒｅａｓｏｎ　
ｉｓ　ｔｈａｔ　ｅｘｅｃｕｔｉｏｎｅｒｓ　ａｒｅ　ｈａｕｎｔｅｄ　ｂｙ　ｔｈｅｉｒ　ｄｕｔｙ　ｏｆ　ｅｘｅｃｕｔｉｏｎ．　　
Ｗｅ　ｓｈｏｕｌｄ　ｔｈｉｎｋ　ａｂｏｕｔ　ｉｔ　ｍｏｒｅ．
（ＭＮ）Ｉｆ　ｔｈｅ　ｃｒｉｍｉｎａｌ　ｉｓ　ｇｉｖｅｎ　ｔｈｅ　ｄｅａｔｈ　ｐｅｎａｌｔｙ，　ａｒｅ　ｔｈｅｙ　ｒｅａｌｌｙ
ｒｅｆｌｅｃｔｉｎｇ？　Ｉ　ｄｏｎ�ｔ　ｔｈｉｎｋ　ｓｏ．　Ｔｈｅ　ｄｅａｔｈ　ｐｅｎａｌｔｙ　ｉｓ　ｍｅａｎｉｎｇｌｅｓｓ　
ｐｕｎｉｓｈｍｅｎｔ．　Ｄｅａｔｈ　ｐｅａｎａｌｔｙ　ｉｓ　ｎｏｔ　ｎｅｃｅｓｓａｒｙ．

yas · Joined: 10 May 2003 Posts: 10

Ｈｅｌｌｏ，　ａｇａｉｎ　！　Ｙａｓ　ｉｓ　ｓｅｎｄｉｎｇ　ａｇａｉｎ　ｔｈｅ　＜ｌｉｆｅｔｉｍｅ　ｉｍｐｒｉｓｏｎｍｅｎｔ－ｓｉｄｅＺ＞　ｏｐｉｎｉｏｎ　ａｇａｉｎ　ｂｅｃａｕｓｅ　Ｉ　ｃｏｕｌｄｎ�ｔ　ｓｅｎｄ　ｔｈｅｍ　ｗｅｌｌ．

（ＳＡ）Ｉ　ｏｐｐｏｓｅ　ｔｈｅ　ｄｅａｔｈ　ｐｅｎａｌｔｙ．　Ｏｎｅ　ｒｅａｓｏｎ　ｉｓ　ｔｈａｔ　ｉｔ　ｉｓ　ｏｌｄ－
ｆａｓｈｉｏｎｅｄ，　ｂｅｃａｕｓｅ　ｍｏｓｔ　ａｄｖａｎｃｅｄ　ｃｏｕｎｔｒｉｅｓ　（ｓｕｃｈ　ａｓ　Ｆｒａｎｃｅ，　
Ｅｎｇｌａｎｄ，　Ｃａｎａｄａ　．．．ａｎｄ　ｓｏ　ｏｎ）　ｈａｖｅ　ａｂｏｌｉｓｈｅｄ　ｉｔ．　Ｍａｎｙ　ｙｅａｒｓ　
ｈａｖｅ　ｐａｓｓｅｄ　ｓｉｎｃｅ　ｔｈａｔ　Ｉ　ｄｏｎ�ｔ　ｔｈｉｎｋ　ｄｅａｔｈ　ｐｅｎａｌｔｙ　ｉｓ　ｔｈｅ　ｇｒｅａｔｅｓｔ　ｓｕｆｆｅｒｉｎｇ．　Ｆｏｒ　ｅｘａｍｐｌｅ，　Ｂｉｎ　Ｌａｄｅｎ　ｔｈｉｎｋｓ　ｏｆ　ｈｉｍｓｅｌｆ　ａｓ　ａ　
ｍａｒｔｙｒ，　ａｎｄ　ｔｈｅ　ｄｅａｔｈ　ｐｅａｎａｌｔｙ　ｗｉｌｌ　ｂｒｉｎｇ　ｈｉｍ　ｐｌｅａｓｕｒｅ．　Ｔｈｅ　ｌａｓｔ　
ｌｅｓｓｏｎ　ｉｓ　ｔｈａｔ　ｔｈｅ　ｅｘｅｃｕｔｉｏｎｅｒｓ　ａｒｅ　ｈａｕｎｔｅｄ　ｂｙ　ｔｈｅｉｒ　ｄｕｔｙ　．　Ｗｅ
ｓｈｏｕｌｄ　ａｂｏｕｔ　ｉｔ　ｍｏｒｅ．

（ＭＮ）Ｉｆ　ｔｈｅ　ｃｒｉｍｉｎａｌｓ　ａｒｅ　ｇｉｖｅｎ　ｔｈｅ　ｄｅａｔｈ　ｐｅｎａｌｔｙ，　ａｒｅ　ｔｈｅｙ　ｒｅａｌｌｙ
ｒｅｆｌｅｃｔｉｎｇ？　Ｉ　ｄｏｎ�ｔ　ｔｈｉｎｋ　ｓｏ．　Ｓｏ　ｔｈｅ　ｄｅａｔｈ　ｐｅｎａｌｔｙ　ｉｓ　ｍｅａｎｇｌｅｓｓ
ｐｕｎｉｓｈｍｅｎｔ．　Ｔｈｅ　ｄｅａｔｈ　ｐｅａｎａｌｔｙ　ｉｓ　ｎｏｔ　ｎｅｅｓｓａｒｙ，　Ｉ　ｔｈｉｎｋ．

yas · Joined: 10 May 2003 Posts: 10

Hello, again from Yas!
Out of techinical problem I coudn't send half of my messages. so I am trying to send it again!

<Lifetime imprisonment---side>

(SA)I oppose the death penalty. It is old-fashioned, because most advanced nations (such as France, Canada, England....) have already abolished it. Many years have passed since the enforcement of " an eye for an eye" The second reason is that I don't think that death is the greatest suffering. For example, Bin Laden thinks of himself as a martyr,
and the death penalty will bring him pleasure. The third reason is that executioners are haunted by their duty. We should think about it more.

((MN)If the death peanalty are given the death penalty, are they really
reflecting? I don't think so. So the death penalty is meaningless punishment. The death penalty is not necessary, I think.

yas · Joined: 10 May 2003 Posts: 10

HELLO, Yas again !
Let me add one opinion by MS. I support Death Penalty. People who killed others should die. Even if the victim's life never comes back, the family will wish the murderer's death. For example , two years ago in Japan Mr.Takumka killed innnocent schoolchildren in Osaka. One of the
victimk's family said, " There is no choice except death penalty for him."