Moral Question

Read the story before the thread.

Link


Would they get what's coming to them?

 

wait.... so going to jail isn't the police's problem....
its what will happen to them or to anybody else if they eat/sell the nuts...

if they did eat the nuts... death is too much of a penalty for what they've done...

 

Really? Back in biblical times, not referencing the Bible, just a timeframe, all the way up to the Dark Ages, on the first thieving offense, they'd remove a finger. Second, they'd lop off a hand. Third, you'd be stoned to death. So death for stealing isn't really THAT outlandish

 

yea, but that was WAAAAAYYYYY back, now we learned to respect the law and human rights...

i mean cmon, if you were stoned (not the "crack" type) to death
then those people who stoned you should also be stoned because they killed someone
then those people who stoned those people who stoned those people who stoned you should be stoned...

and infinity comes along

 

I don't get your logic. Say a guy kills someone tomorrow. He's sentenced to the death penalty. Would the guy who flips the switch on the electric chair be a murderer? How about the doctor administering the lethal injection?

What applied then applies now, albeit in a slightly more refined form.

 

yes, that was my point... if you were sentenced to death, then the one who kills you will be a murderer, thus sentencing him to death as well and so on....

thats why we have "jail", a nice little place for us to think of what we did, in jail, we will still be given of our needs like food, water, clothes and a shelter, so no "death-penalty infinity" will take place because no one will die and will kill

 

Holy crap, that's just under three hundred kilos!

I very much doubt they'll get what's coming too them. Stealing such a large amount would imply that they're out to sell them, which has the potential to kill hundreds. I very much doubt they'd steal that many and then tuck into them. If this's all true then it's a very serious situation.

As for their punishment, they don't deserve to die. If the nuts weren't poisonous, and they were caught, they'd most likely be given a hefty fine, and possibly imprisoned for a short time as well. The problem arises if and when they start selling them, as they'd be killing those who bought them, but wouldn't know they're doing it. The only time they'd've actually broken the law would have been stealing them in the first place, but they're also responsible for what happened to their customers...

Then there's the question of whether they knew about the hydrogen phosphate in the first place. I'd imagine something like that would require a poisonous gas warning label, which would have to be fairly visible, so that would indicate that they would have to have known the gas was present, which raises all sorts of issues.

About the death penalty, I think it's plain wrong. Obviously the 'executioners' are just doing their job, but the whole thing about killing someone for doing the wrong thing is just so hypocritical. Then there's the fact that there's the possibility that they are in fact innocent, and also the fact that life imprisonment would be a worse sentence, allow the possibility for him or her to be freed if further evidence arises proving their innocence, and the fact, as little as it counts, for them to think about what they've done.

 

ursa, i think you're wrroooonnnngggg.
it's not murdering like that. Their life was forefeit, and who has the right to do it? the government. and who gave the government that power? our law makers and representatives. and who brought up the laws to be passed/approved them/didn't gfight agaisnt them. we (the people) did. So in what you are saying, that would make us all murderers, since you blame the chain of people who jsut do their job.

anyway, i agree with Hex. No one can eat that many nuts. they're going to sell them and kill a bunch of people =(

and i agree with the death penalty. people are fairly warned. they know going into things that they could face death if they were caught. however, i think they need to be DNA proven as well, because a lot of cases here in illinois tuned out with people on death road being innocent after further DNA testing was done. granted, they are human lives, but as said, imo, certain things take your right to life away. you took someone else's life, it's only fair you get what comes to you. i'm more for letting them rot in jail, but our jails here are so full of criminals it's just awful. as terrible as it sounds, i'm not against the idea of us killing a lot of them off to make more room for people who don't deserve the death penalty. i.e. shoplifters, J walkers, thieves.

in short, i don't think they deserve death for stealing the nuts, but, if they sell them to other people and end up killing them (because now they no doubt know these nuts are poisonous, i'm all for axing them.

 

I don't agree with only DNA evidence being required to give someone the death sentence. DNA evidence does link them to it, but it doesn't mean they're guilty of the crime, two examples being if someone was being framed or if they were related or extremely close. If someone wanted to get rid of someone else and knew they had something against a third person, they could easily try to frame them. There'd be both a motive and evidence linking them to the crime, which is getting far too close for comfort. As for being related or otherwise extremely close, there's a good chance they could be identified as a suspect, which again, is too close for comfort. I know these examples might seem very unlikely, but the fact is that there's a chance to kill an innocent person. Imagine if more evidence was found or if the real person admitted to it after the sentence had been carried out.

Besides, life imprisonment would be a worse punishment. First and foremost, it's able to be withdrawn at a later date. The death penalty isn't. Secondly, they're actually being punished for what they've done. I'm obviously aware than the death penalty is also a punishment, but it's over so quickly for the convicted. The victim and the victim's friends and relatives would be left to suffer day in and day out for what the convicted did, but the convicted would have to. If the convicted was given life imprisonment, then they'd actually be punished and suffer for what they did, and for the rest of their life. Lastly, it's just so hypocritical to kill someone for doing the wrong thing.

 

what, you'd rather let someone who killed be raped in prison, the fear of dying everyday because of the gangs?

I agree to people being jailed, and of course it's very ironic that killers get killed for what they do, but that up there is a point to look at. You can deny it happens, but it does, at least here it does.

Yes, I've heard of that happening and it's awful. There was one man sentenced to death and about a week later he was found to be innocent. I feel so bad for those people. because it's rare but you are right that it does happen and cannot be undone. I value human life, but when you look at it, many people do end up being the guilty ones. I wish there were better ways to tell right now, but there are not. Still, unless here in the US, we are facing overcrowding in jails. People call it cruel and unusual punishment that poor prison inmates can't get three square meals a day and they have like three people to every cell. Then you try to make more jails and people get mad, then you try to give stricter punishment and people get angry, and then God forbid you loosen the laws or let the inmates out earlier! I don't see any other way to go about it at the current time.

 

im against death penalty so i say, no, they are getting more then they should, but if they die from eating them i will not grief for a moment, because it is their own damn fault

 

Do I think they deserve the death penalty? No. This is no malicious crime intent on hurting people. If anything, this crime is the precursor to a Darwin Award.

 

If someone admits to such a crime, or are completely and entirely proven guilty, then I think they should be put to death. If they are left to rot in prison, then they use our tax money to feed them, and clothe them, and maintain the prison. If someone cannot ever be released back to society, then what use do we have for keeping them alive?

On the thieves, IMO, there are two things going on.

One, the police have made up the whole thing, as a plot to get them to turn themselves in uncontested.

Or, the thieves knew about the poison, and are doing this as some act of terrorism.

 

While theft isn't something that should be punishable by death, since they have been warned that the nuts were poisonous and ate them anyways thn their stupidity precludes the right to pity. If they sell the nuts and others die, then yes they should be punished for manslaughter at the least.

 

That would imply that they had no knowledge or intention of killing them. I doubt this is the case.

 

You couldn't try them for murder since murder implies the deliberate attempt to kill.
Manslaughter means that you caused the death of someone without intent or malice, often through accident or plain disregard for the safety of others.

 

This is actually what I was getting at, I just didn't know how to say it.

 

Overcrowded gaols and not providing the three meals per day are definitely a problem, but it just goes to show that enough money isn't spend on it. Spending money on it and the prisoners is not a waste of taxpayer money, as taxpayer money is spent on running the country. Prisons are huge part of this. If more was spent on it, then they could resolve the overcrowding and food problems, allowing them to remove the death penalty, which would both bring the prisoner's living conditions up to the required minimum and save wrongly convicted suspects. Besides, the death penalty doesn't only punish the criminal, it punishes all their family and friends as well. They're still people, and killing them does the exact same thing to them and their friends and family as the criminal most likely did to someone else, and that someone's friends and family, which is why it's so hypocritical. Also, removing the death penalty would relieve grey areas, like if someone's have killed someone else in self defence, etc.

And think back to what happened to the wrongly convicted suspect that Kurai talked about. You can hardly even call that an execution, as he did nothing wrong. It's murder. Then think about that person's friends and family. Think of what they must have gone through when he was sentenced to death for murder, then when he was actually 'executed', and then when he was proven to be innocent. How can you say it's a waste of taxpayer money if he didn't have to die. How can you even put a value on that? And it doesn't even end there, as this is just one isolated case.

It isn't a waste of taxpayer money and wouldn't be a waste if more money had to be spent. That money is spent to run the country, and prisons are a part of that. It's a part of society, closely linked to security too. If spending more money would provide the minimum living conditions for these people and allow the death penalty to be removed, then more money should be spent.

 

Believe it or not, I'm strongly opposed to the death penalty. I did a report on it once, back in 11th year. For the life imprisonment to cost more than execution by lethal injection in the state of Utah in 2006, the inmate would have to be kept in jail for 40+ years. Obviously, this doesn't cover costly medical procedures and such like that, but execution generally costs FAR more than most people assume.

However.

I believe that if you do something stupid, you reap the consequences. I mean, if you walk into a bear trap, well, that sucks, and it's not your fault, and you should be helped. If you go camping and fry BBQ bacon burgers and get attacked by a bear, well...That was stupid. Same deal with the nuts. If you're stupid enough to steal nuts (600 pounds of nuts? wut), you reap the consequences of being a thief.

 

I agree with Itza that prisoners should have better living conditions, but the chief problem is overcrowding, not undertaxing. It would be best if they started putting less people in prison instead of taxing people more or killing off the bad ones. Some of the less serious crimes people are in for (ex: drug use, DUI's, etc.) don't warrant prison time when putting these people in prison is going to cause overcrowding and lower quality of life for all the prisoners. Besides, more taxation isn't the answer, especially now that the damn $700B bailout's official. Take the taxpayer money and use more of it on prison systems, and I'm fine with that. But to pay extra taxes in an economic recession on prisoners is no-no.