PDA

View Full Version : Do you believe in the death penalty?


Brittani
April 7th, 2010, 03:02 PM
I'm not sure whether i agree or disagree with the death penalty. whats your opinion about the death penalty? :\

Izanagi
April 7th, 2010, 03:05 PM
I support it. The Bible says that if you take a life, you should lose yours.

Brittani
April 7th, 2010, 03:16 PM
I support it. The Bible says that if you take a life, you should lose yours.

true...like an eye for an eye. that does make sense. but why would someone not support the death penalty? thats why i need people here that do and dont.

Aureol
April 7th, 2010, 03:23 PM
I support it, but I don't think it should be done for a first offense. Some people CAN change, and it really is a waste to kill off those that might've ended up different. Once a second offense is committed though, then do it, no question.

.Gamer
April 7th, 2010, 03:26 PM
"An eye for an eye." I also think child rapists should be killed too. Thats just sickening.

Human
April 7th, 2010, 03:55 PM
Roast 'em. I did a research paper a few years ago, and the statistics I found showed that it's also considerably more pricey to keep people on jail.

Patchisou Yutohru
April 7th, 2010, 03:58 PM
I support the death penalty, but for heinous criminals, I'd much prefer a slow and painful torture scenario than a quick death.

Sneeze
April 7th, 2010, 04:01 PM
Was discussing this earlier today with friends, I don't support it unless the person is a serial offender, killing a person because he killed someone else is a little moot, no? What if he killed someone to raped him, or who killed who commited a crime that was punishable by the death penalty? Would he still get charged then even though the person who operates the switch of the electric chair is guilty of the exact same thing? Killing someone is killing someone regardless of methods and who did it. What about soldiers?

There's to many variables in it in my opinion and as said, unless a person has killed like five people then no, I disagree with it completely.

FreakyLocz14
April 7th, 2010, 04:13 PM
I do not support it. But if we are to do it my method of choice is nitrogen aspyxiation.

Yamikarasu
April 7th, 2010, 04:22 PM
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Think about it...

Am I seriously the first person to vote that I don't support the death penalty? (Well I was when I started typing this :P) I'm surprised, I thought there would at least be a few others. Am I going to have to pull out and dust off my list of statistics saying how much more money it costs taxpayers to kill someone legally than it does to send them to prison for life without parole?

I just can't support killing anyone in any case. Maybe in self-defense, but the death penalty is not self-defense. And please don't give me that B.S. about how we're protecting others by killing dangerous people. When dangerous people are locked up how they should be (maximum security + life without parole), they can't kill people. Period. Plus there is always the possibility you are killing someone who is innocent. It's f*****g sick.

Sometimes you just have to be the better person and realize that you can't kill someone because they killed someone first. It's like children in a fight and saying to their parents "well they started it!"

I want someone to give me a reason that someone should be killed when there is the option of life without parole. Hint: revenge is not the answer.

Roast 'em. I did a research paper a few years ago, and the statistics I found showed that it's also considerably more pricey to keep people on jail.

Alright, I guess I'll dust them off:

Acording to http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty...

Using conservative rough projections, the Commission estimates the annual costs of the present (death penalty) system to be $137 million per year.

The cost of the present system with reforms recommended by the Commission to ensure a fair process would be $232.7 million per year.

The cost of a system in which the number of death-eligible crimes was significantly narrowed would be $130 million per year.

The cost of a system which imposes a maximum penalty of lifetime incarceration instead of the death penalty would be $11.5 million per year.

Even Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/27/just-cost-death-penalty-killer-state-budgets/) has reported on how much the death penalty costs in comparison to life without parole. The reason costs are so high because the process required by the constitution to kill someone legally is so convoluted. Lawyers need to be paid, etc., etc.

FreakyLocz14
April 7th, 2010, 04:28 PM
"An eye for an eye." I also think child rapists should be killed too. Thats just sickening.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that executing child molesters is cruel and unusal punishment because the punhisment is not proportionate to the crime. They feel execution should be done where the prisoner has taken a life. So they did go "eye for an eye" on that one.

Sneeze
April 7th, 2010, 04:33 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that executing child molesters is cruel and unusal punishment because the punhisment is not proportionate to the crime. They feel execution should be done where the prisoner has taken a life. So they did go "eye for an eye" on that one.

So they should be molested by someone with a simialr size ratio to what they had over the child, like a gorilla or a rhino.

Actually I'm all for that one, above all else, it would be hilarious.

FreakyLocz14
April 7th, 2010, 04:36 PM
So they should be molested by someone with a simialr size ratio to what they had over the child, like a gorilla or a rhino.

Actually I'm all for that one, above all else, it would be hilarious.

Epic win!

On more serious note I'm sure that would be struck down by the Court as well.
In that case is when the Court decided to give extra rights to death row convicts. The majority had the opinion that "Death is different." when deciding how to handle these cases.

Stairmaster
April 7th, 2010, 04:54 PM
I support it, but I don't think it should be done for a first offense. Some people CAN change, and it really is a waste to kill off those that might've ended up different. Once a second offense is committed though, then do it, no question.
So that two children are molested? So that two entire families are shot to death one by one? So that two people's lives are either taken or completely ruined? I don't think that's a good way to look at it. Some people just can't be rehabilitated.

I support the death penalty, but for heinous criminals, I'd much prefer a slow and painful torture scenario than a quick death.
I definitely agree with this. Why be humane to someone who isn't?

twocows
April 7th, 2010, 06:06 PM
If people are destructive members of society, they need to be dealt with. First, we should try therapy or re-education, but this should be carefully monitored. It's possible they may just have had a rough life and need to sort some things out. We do need a way to figure out which people may simply be rehabilitated and which people are too far gone, so to say.

If that fails, though, the government should give the person an option on how to contribute to society, of which the death penalty should be a choice. The person should be confined and allowed to choose whether to do manual labor, to do research, to have some sort of procedure done to solve the problem (e.g., in instances of rape, chemical or physical castration), or to take the death penalty. I feel like this would turn these people into potentially productive, albeit isolated, members of society.

Brittani
April 7th, 2010, 06:27 PM
yeah i think i am against the death penalty mainly because two wrongs dont make a right. If someone kills someone and then we kill them, does that really make it right? And i dont believe that someone should decide when another is going to die, life is sacred as stated in the bible. Also, people can change if we give them a chance to, but by killing them we arent giving them a chance to change their ways.

icomeanon6
April 7th, 2010, 06:34 PM
I definitely agree with this. Why be humane to someone who isn't?
Because when we cease to be humane to anyone, we are not acting as humans.

I oppose the death penalty for the same reason that I oppose abortion. It is not our place to decide who dies, even if we don't think it's fair that they have life. The only case where killing is morally defensible is where a person's continued existence brings a serious threat to the lives of others. Enemy combatants (assuming the war is just) and fetuses that put the mother's life at stake fall under this category, but criminals in most countries do not. We can keep them securely in jail indefinitely, so that's what we should do. It may be expensive, but it's nothing that most countries can't afford. Only severely impaired countries can morally use the death penalty.

NarutoActor
April 7th, 2010, 06:34 PM
I have never really formed an opinion on this. I feel it should be different in every state. Which ever one is cheaper really, save the most money in this troubling economy. But something in my heart tells me no one besides god has the right to end a life.

Eпvy
April 7th, 2010, 06:34 PM
I'm against it.

It's like "You killed people, that's wrong!" and then you kill them. Okay, whatever. If that's the logic you want to follow. Personally I'd much rather them end up in jail for the rest of their life.

Cassino
April 7th, 2010, 07:08 PM
If people routinely refuse to or are unable to function in society, they should be placed seperate from it. They may then attempt clandestinely re-enter it for their personal benefit, so if this is deemed to be overwhelmingly likely they should be expunged before given such a chance.

Timbjerr
April 7th, 2010, 07:14 PM
The way I see it, if someone has been such a detriment to society to have earned capital punishment (in most cases this usually involves violent acts motivated by anarchy or multiple violent acts motivated by supremacy or hate...and are usually found unable to be rehabilitated by accredited psychologists) they're not the least bit sympathetic and no one will care if they die. If it were up to me, I'd do away with methods like the electric chair or lethal injection that are relatively slow in favor of long-term poisons that induce the kind of suffering this person inflicted on others.

Say what you want, but that's just me. :P

Aureol
April 7th, 2010, 07:19 PM
So that two children are molested? So that two entire families are shot to death one by one? So that two people's lives are either taken or completely ruined? I don't think that's a good way to look at it. Some people just can't be rehabilitated.

I meant if they commit a crime to more than one person, so someone killing a whole family wouldn't get away with it. I realize that some people can't be rehabilitated, but I also believe that many can. We always look at the harm a person can do, but how much good could that same person do if he changed? Many people just have a screwed-up look on things, and they may change given the chance. Am I saying spare them from harsh punishment? No, of course not; but murder isn't really helped by killing another person.

It ultimately depends on the situation. But generally speaking, I think that only a second-time offense proves that there is no going back.

Esper
April 7th, 2010, 07:35 PM
Put me down in the "against" column.

I don't need to repeat the moral arguments so I'll just add that even really thorough legal systems aren't perfect and innocent people have been imprisoned and sometimes, though rarely, executed. You can't undo death like you can undo imprisonment.

Binary
April 7th, 2010, 09:57 PM
In my country we don't have death penalty. I think it is inhumane but the people who commit crimes are also doing inhumane things. I think that without the death penalty, people will continue to commit crimes.
But, I'm against death penalty. Mainly because taking another person's life is simply inhumane. I think that life-imprisonment is a better solution :).

Horizon
April 8th, 2010, 12:31 AM
I want someone to give me a reason that someone should be killed when there is the option of life without parole.

My view on the matter is that if you purposefully end someone else's life you don't deserve to live yours. of course, there would have to be concrete evidence that the person is guilty for this to be effective.

I also don't believe in the idea of "being the better person" by putting them in prison, or people say that "you are lowering yourself to their level". If someone knowingly and willingly takes the life of another then the consequences should be equal.

In many cases, by putting a murderer in prison, you are actually giving them a better life that they would have if they were free. If you need me to explain this, then I will. But in my view, the longer the punishment is not proportionate to the crime, then the rates of murder will be much higher.

Katie_Q
April 8th, 2010, 03:11 AM
It depends. Child rapists I think should be killed. I think it would depend for murderers. If some body kills some on else because they say... abused them as a child and messed them up, or killed some one else, then that person who killed them shouldn't die. But if they kill people for no reason, well they should probably die

Code
April 8th, 2010, 03:41 AM
If people are destructive members of society, they need to be dealt with. First, we should try therapy or re-education, but this should be carefully monitored. It's possible they may just have had a rough life and need to sort some things out. We do need a way to figure out which people may simply be rehabilitated and which people are too far gone, so to say.

If that fails, though, the government should give the person an option on how to contribute to society, of which the death penalty should be a choice. The person should be confined and allowed to choose whether to do manual labor, to do research, to have some sort of procedure done to solve the problem (e.g., in instances of rape, chemical or physical castration), or to take the death penalty. I feel like this would turn these people into potentially productive, albeit isolated, members of society.
This system of yours is not perfect, but neither is the law system today.
I am against the death penalty, and I support your basically thought out idea.

ILoveDragonite
April 8th, 2010, 11:34 AM
punishment trumps rehabilitation.

If you've killed than you should be killed.

Any other crime should just be prison time.

It depends. Child rapists I think should be killed. I think it would depend for murderers. If some body kills some on else because they say... abused them as a child and messed them up, or killed some one else, then that person who killed them shouldn't die. But if they kill people for no reason, well they should probably die
Why not normal rapists? Thats an extremely biased opinion.

Captain Hobo.
April 8th, 2010, 01:01 PM
I think it is a good idea if you kill people then you should die.

Aureol
April 8th, 2010, 01:55 PM
Why does everybody think that the death penalty is so inhumane anyways? Assuming it was impossible to break out of life imprisonment, I would choose the death penalty because that's a whole lot better than rotting in jail, wondering why I messed up my life, for a good 60 years (or however long). As far as I see it, life in jail is far more inhumane, and the only reason I would choose jail over death is because then there might come a day where I could break out of jail, and in that case I have cheated the system and lessened my punishment.

Yes, some people are innocent, but some people think death is too inhumane even if the person was a murderer. Besides, it's not like the death penalty is a huge secret that potential murderers and rapists don't know about. They forfeit their rights when they commit a crime this low. I don't support torture just for the sake of punishment, but most forms of execution are either quick or painless.

JadedIguana
April 8th, 2010, 04:02 PM
Yes, and I think that death should be the result of most crimes. A warning or two dependent on the crime, and if committed again, you die. This solves many things. Whoever, it's proven that rapists/murderers will do it again, so I figure it's best to just kill them when caught, to cease the spread of their genes.

Sneeze
April 8th, 2010, 04:51 PM
it's proven that rapists/murderers will do it again, so I figure it's best to just kill them when caught, to cease the spread of their genes.

It is? Where?

Murder usually has a motivation, revenge or something. If they get their revenge why would they kill again? I sincerely doubt all killers are serial killers, most won't be.

Rape not so much, granted.

Shiiny Pikachu
April 8th, 2010, 05:04 PM
I don't believe in it. Everyone has a right to live

PokemonLeagueChamp
April 8th, 2010, 05:48 PM
Lemme put it this way.

If we followed the "humane" approach, no killing someone because they killed someone, we wouldn't be fighting terrorists, we wouldn't have fought in World War II, and hell, the USA may not have even been around today.

Not trying to be overdramatic, just putting things in perspective. Mass murders who are proven guilty on a solid base evidence must be executed. Period. If you have the proof they did it, kill them, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. For single time murders, depends. Cases of self-defense should NOT be charged. Murders for money, power, drugs, etc. should be punished by life in prison. Rapists, if it's once and they've been rehabilitated, keep an eye on them and let them loose. If it was several and they're rehabilitated, keep em for a few years to be sure, then release them. If it's many, or they can't be rehabilitated, life in prison or castration. That simple.

JadedIguana
April 8th, 2010, 06:33 PM
It is? Where?

Murder usually has a motivation, revenge or something. If they get their revenge why would they kill again? I sincerely doubt all killers are serial killers, most won't be.

Rape not so much, granted.


It's true about the revenge, but I don't think that people should handle situations like that so...poorly? If it's a revenge thing, killing the killer, I'm all for it. But if it's because someone stole money or cheated on you; regardless of that being a bad thing, I don't think they should respond that way, you know, have a leveled head about it. People are/can be bad. And there isn't much that can stop it.

With giving/letting people know that there are death sentences, and that one could get it so easily, I believe it would put a halt to many crimes, because they want to be preserved. Live. Those that knowingly break the law, know that they can die, and if caught, will. And hold what they have done higher than their own life.

Hopefully this isn't seen as rambling, but at that point, if we ever get to it, people would think carefully about their life's value, and the thing that they think they want to do. And will probably chose not to do it.

Sneeze
April 8th, 2010, 06:50 PM
It's true about the revenge, but I don't think that people should handle situations like that so...poorly? If it's a revenge thing, killing the killer, I'm all for it. But if it's because someone stole money or cheated on you; regardless of that being a bad thing, I don't think they should respond that way, you know, have a leveled head about it. People are/can be bad. And there isn't much that can stop it.

With giving/letting people know that there are death sentences, and that one could get it so easily, I believe it would put a halt to many crimes, because they want to be preserved. Live. Those that knowingly break the law, know that they can die, and if caught, will. And hold what they have done higher than their own life.

Hopefully this isn't seen as rambling, but at that point, if we ever get to it, people would think carefully about their life's value, and the thing that they think they want to do. And will probably chose not to do it.

I agree, I in no way condone killing someone for the sake of revenge but I was just saying that all killers will kill again isn't strictly true.

And I believe in the Penn and Teller Bull**** episode about the death penalty they (well, Penn did) that states with the capital punishment don't have a significant difference to those without so in the end it might not be all that good of a deterrent. I'm not sure how reliable the show is as a source though and the episode was a few years old so thinks might have changed so I can't say for sure.

TheUltimateSacrifice
April 8th, 2010, 07:55 PM
I say we have a fight to the death between the criminal and a prison officer (chosen at random).

PokemonLeagueChamp
April 9th, 2010, 05:50 AM
I say we have a fight to the death between the criminal and a prison officer (chosen at random).
TBH that's a stupid idea.

Scenario #1: Prisoner kills guard. A riot will probably break out, putting more lives in danger.

Scenario #2: Guard shoots prisoner. Essentially the death penalty.

What would be gained from that?

TheUltimateSacrifice
April 9th, 2010, 07:37 AM
TBH that's a stupid idea.

Scenario #1: Prisoner kills guard. A riot will probably break out, putting more lives in danger.

Scenario #2: Guard shoots prisoner. Essentially the death penalty.

What would be gained from that?

#1 - Have you seen the state of prisons lately? They are full to the brim. A bit of spring cleaning (of inmates), will do society some good! Free up taxpayer money, you know?

#2 - But the prisoner is in with a chance. He's like Rocky - the underdog, but always in with a chance. The win is never out of reach, and it makes for some good entertainment - like Gladiator all over again - people pay good money for stuff like that!

It's a flawless idea, and there is everything to gain - there are no limits!

mondays suck
April 9th, 2010, 10:36 AM
Death Penalty? Becoming a murderer in order to oppose crime? Sounds pretty stupid to me.
You are all taking about the bible phrase "an eye for an eye", or whatever the english version of that saying it. I'm not perfectly informed, but I'm pretty sure that phrase originates from the old testament. Why do I think so? Because Jesus was talking about pretty much the exact opposite of it. And, by the way, the old testament also advises people to beat their children and whatever else. So yeah. When you are quoting the bible, one should think you are talking about the ideals of christianity, but all that "an eye for an eye"-stuff is actually quite obviously NOT an ideal of christianity, it's not even close to that.
Seriously, if you promote death penalty, you might as well promote these oh so much hated sharia laws like cutting thieves hands off or throwing stones at people for some other kinds of crimes (I can't really remember what crime that exactly was, but does it matter?).
About the whole child rapists thing (I know, it's probably not too wise to talk about that topic with a pedobear avatar, but it since it has been mentioned, i'll pick it up anyways)... Pedophilia might be criminal, but these people are born with it, paraphilias are just like any other type of sexuality, except that they might cause some more problems. Over the time, a massive sexual frustration must be developping, which makes these people so desperate that they become rapists. That's the one side of the thing. The other one is the more obvious stuff, you know what belongs here, so I don't see any necessarity to write that down. What do I want to say with this? I think that pedophiles should be considered as mentally disabled, pedophilia is, like for example sociopathy (which leads to even worse crimes), a permanent psychic condition, nothing you are guilty of. You would, if it just wouldn't be for the crimes that these conditions cause so often. So, I'd say, send them to prison for their crimes or in extremer cases even to something like a madhouse, but killing them? No, that's far too exaggerated.



hmm, does that text look angry? I hope not, because it isn't supposed to look that way. It's just meant to contain opinions, no anger.

OokamiShipper
April 10th, 2010, 08:34 AM
Um...I'm not sure...this is a really complicated topic. ^^;
I always end up overthinking it and contradicting myself in these kind of things...
I do think that the death penalty is kinda extreme...because I believe a life is still a life no matter how much...(I guess it's sins?) it's been burdened with. I also think that killing a killer is gonna set off a never-ending chain reaction...
And then vice versa, I argue with myself a lot...

Druid
April 10th, 2010, 10:43 AM
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. Think about it...

Plus there is always the possibility you are killing someone who is innocent.

I don't support it. If you execute someone, even if they were guilty of murder, doesn't killing them make you the killer? I remember learning that two wrongs don't make a right - is this not true in this case? Why not? What always scares me about the death penalty is that we are going back to our roots as savage people. In a civilization, everybody should have a life - even if their life is in prison. Murder is illegal, and we'd be hypocrites to commit it for any reason. Life imprisonment keeps these people away from us, but doesn't leave a stain on our conscious.

Also, people are framed for crimes, as well as simply mistaken for committing them all the time. With prison, there's always the chance that if you discover, in the future, that they hadn't committed a crime at all, they can be released to live a relatively normal life. If you kill them when they are found guilty, who would even look for evidence?

Yamikarasu
April 10th, 2010, 11:45 AM
My view on the matter is that if you purposefully end someone else's life you don't deserve to live yours. of course, there would have to be concrete evidence that the person is guilty for this to be effective.

I also don't believe in the idea of "being the better person" by putting them in prison, or people say that "you are lowering yourself to their level". If someone knowingly and willingly takes the life of another then the consequences should be equal.

In many cases, by putting a murderer in prison, you are actually giving them a better life that they would have if they were free. If you need me to explain this, then I will. But in my view, the longer the punishment is not proportionate to the crime, then the rates of murder will be much higher.

All I have to say to that is this is the kind of rational that leads to unnecessary wars. "They did something bad to us so we need to punish them for it" rather than "they did something bad to us so we need to prevent them from ever doing that again."

kw2tsg1
April 10th, 2010, 11:57 AM
I don't know what I feel about the death penalty but I guess I don't support it only because it seems that it would make me feel like the killer because I wanted that criminal to get the death penalty. I honestly don't know what to say about this but this is just what I think.

Reina
April 10th, 2010, 12:02 PM
Honestly, I just think some people are a harm to the human race and just deserve to die. No one single person should be able to judge who lives and dies, but I still think sometimes it's completely necessary for people to die, if it's a severe enough crime...

Kleinchen
April 10th, 2010, 03:30 PM
I support the death penalty, but I think it should only be used on people convicted of first- or second-degree murder or with more than one rape conviction.

Yes, everyone has the right to live, but when you take someone else's life, you forfeit your own right to live your life. Did the person they murder get a say in whether or not they got to live? No. So the murderer shouldn't be allowed to either. And rape can seriously destroy people's lives; rape victims generally need copious amounts of therapy or drugs like antidepressants to be able to resume living a normal life. One rape should be punished by jail time, rehabilitation, and very careful monitoring after the rapist's release from prison. If the person commits more than one rape, then they have shown that they obviously are unable to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society, and because they have ruined more than one person's life, they should not be allowed to keep theirs.

And the death penalty is not cruel or unusual punishment. Nearly every method of execution is quick and painless, which is often much more merciful than the methods employed by the murderer or rapist on their victims.

Sneeze
April 10th, 2010, 04:14 PM
Again going on Penn and Teller, apparently lethal injection is far from humane leaving the person completely paralysed for a while before the actual lethal part comes into play, can't remember the exact details but allegedly the protocol is less strict for lethal injection than it is for putting an animal to sleep. Of course there's always the electric chair.

Spikey-Eared Pichu
April 10th, 2010, 06:51 PM
My honest opinion:

The death penalty is something that should be an exclusive option to those who've commited murder, and/or commited a crime of national or global level. Why? Because, those who've committed such vile, dispicable crimes as murdering a child, raping them, killing babies, killing/raping pregnant women, taking sexual advantage of the physically or mentally handicapped shouldn't be put to death, no, they should be cofined to life in prison without pural or bail. BUT they cannot be put in solitary-confinement, nooooo. They are to be put in a cell, and be forced to participate in all activities as other convicts. Also, they are to be announced to be a violator of children, pregnant women, or the mentally or physically handicapped. WHY? So the inmates can have their ways with these sick-os. Let them experience the violation and abuse they put their victims through. And when they're on their cells, bleeding and crying, pleading over and over to be put to death, deny them their request. Make them feel exactly how they made their victims feel.

Yuukihime
April 10th, 2010, 08:20 PM
I do support the death penalty in certain circumstances, in others I think they should just spend the rest of their sorry lives in prison. :|

twocows
April 10th, 2010, 08:39 PM
My honest opinion:

The death penalty is something that should be an exclusive option to those who've commited murder, and/or commited a crime of national or global level. Why? Because, those who've committed such vile, dispicable crimes as murdering a child, raping them, killing babies, killing/raping pregnant women, taking sexual advantage of the physically or mentally handicapped shouldn't be put to death, no, they should be cofined to life in prison without pural or bail. BUT they cannot be put in solitary-confinement, nooooo. They are to be put in a cell, and be forced to participate in all activities as other convicts. Also, they are to be announced to be a violator of children, pregnant women, or the mentally or physically handicapped. WHY? So the inmates can have their ways with these sick-os. Let them experience the violation and abuse they put their victims through. And when they're on their cells, bleeding and crying, pleading over and over to be put to death, deny them their request. Make them feel exactly how they made their victims feel.
You're assuming that everyone that goes to prison for a charge like this is actually guilty of that charge. There are false positives in the justice system more often than you'd think, and this is one reason why a "revenge" system like this is such a bad thing. You're condemning potentially innocent people to torture, and for what?

Like I said, assuming re-education doesn't work (we need a way to figure out on which people it will work best), we simply need to isolate these people and have them do something actually useful for society, though the death penalty should be an option if they wish to receive it.

Spikey-Eared Pichu
April 10th, 2010, 09:28 PM
Okay, sure we get false-positives, but for the majority, these people are convicted on correct terms. WHY should these sick bastards be given the easy ways out? Therapy, the death sentence, isolation, they're all terrible ideas because these people, no, these scum will go without having to pay for their crimes in an equal way to what they did in the first place.

RivalGator
April 10th, 2010, 11:59 PM
Absolutely.

I believe the Death Penalty is justice ONLY if you have taken another life... Or there is just too much damn room in the cells. I don't believe they should keep making prisons to hold all of those people...

In all opinion, I feel like the systems are being way too nice to criminals. They use the death penalty as little as possible. If people kill someone, then they should die in the exact same way that they have killed... Unless they were, like, in the army or attacked and had valid reason to kill. But I believe that if a guy rapes and kills a woman, he should be raped by a really big gay man and then killed the same exact way. That's exactly how I see it.

I love the death penalty. It teaches people that they aren't so high and mighty in the world after all and gets rid of the worthless cowards who have nothing better to do than make other people's lives miserable.

I know I sound mean, but that's the way I see it.

Tonda
April 11th, 2010, 01:54 AM
Eh, I just spent ten minutes writing a massive post on why I dont support the death penalty, got logged out and lost the entire post. Yay me!

Anyways, my main points were that its cheaper to keep someone in jail for life without parole than it is to put them to death; the legal paperwork is huge and court costs because of multiple appeals isnt cheap either. Innocent people have been put to death for crimes that they didnt commit before, and that alone is a reason for why it shouldnt be allowed I think. I did some research a couple of years back, and found that (in the USA) states that have the death penalty have a higher crime rate than those that dont.

Im also a believer in that everyone should have the chance of rehabilitation. I know that it doesnt work for everyone (I went on a trip to a prison for a law subject once), but it should at least be attempted. Everyone deserves a second chance.

I live in a country where we dont have the death penalty, and I think our system works fine as it is. Being in prison is a horrible enough deterrent for most, and for those that arent deterred by it probably wont be deterred by the death penalty either.

My other post was much more convincing, but oh well. I believe that its barbaric to have the death penalty, but thats just my opinion.

Misheard Whisper
April 11th, 2010, 05:22 AM
I don't believe any human should have the right to take the life of another. The power to take away someone else's life is not a power we should have. Sure, lock the bastards away so they never see daylight again, but killing them is not something we should be able to do. Even the most despicable human being has the right to live.

Gold warehouse
April 11th, 2010, 06:59 AM
I don't believe it should be used as a predetermined penalty for a certain crime, each case is different so I don't think there should be any sort of set routine that is used to deal with particular offences. Although, I do support it as a viable option, it just totally depends on the circumstances of each individual criminal case as to whether it should be used or not.
The laws that we're supposed to follow are something humanity created so we can try to exist as peacefully as possible. Once someone has committed a serious crime, they shouldn't retain their 'rights' and shouldn't remain protected by the laws they refused to follow.

Throat
April 11th, 2010, 07:07 AM
Yes, if you do kill people, you should be killed for the whole society's sake, not for bloodlust. Surely it should only be applied when there's no other way, no chance the person adapt to society.

Muffin™
April 11th, 2010, 05:51 PM
I support the death penalty, but I think it should only be used on people convicted of first- or second-degree murder or with more than one rape conviction.

Yes, everyone has the right to live, but when you take someone else's life, you forfeit your own right to live your life. Did the person they murder get a say in whether or not they got to live? No. So the murderer shouldn't be allowed to either. And rape can seriously destroy people's lives; rape victims generally need copious amounts of therapy or drugs like antidepressants to be able to resume living a normal life. One rape should be punished by jail time, rehabilitation, and very careful monitoring after the rapist's release from prison. If the person commits more than one rape, then they have shown that they obviously are unable to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into society, and because they have ruined more than one person's life, they should not be allowed to keep theirs.

And the death penalty is not cruel or unusual punishment. Nearly every method of execution is quick and painless, which is often much more merciful than the methods employed by the murderer or rapist on their victims.


I actually agree to this one. :)

chadgraphix
April 11th, 2010, 07:06 PM
Yes. They need to be taught a lesson, or obviously they won't learn not to kill people.

.EJ
April 11th, 2010, 07:21 PM
I'm against the Death penalty. I feel as though both sides have some very interesting and swaying arguments, but ultimately I have to disagree with it. Yeah, there's horrible people out there that commit heinous crimes but we also have to think about the falsely accused people that are in there. If anybody is interested, try googling "the innocence project" just to see how many people are wrongly convicted. Not only that, but we also have to consider the responsibility of murdering another human being. Nobody should have that responsibility or power in my humble opinion.

We can't just be ignorant and say "They killed so let's kill them!" because then we'd be following the "eye for an eye" approach (and well the whole world goes blind from it like somebody else had stated.) So I voted no.

Went
April 12th, 2010, 04:09 AM
I'll just stick to the "The whole point is not getting revenge, but keeping that guy away so he doesn't do it again". Murdering won't teach anybody a lesson- because once you are dead, you can't learn anything, duh. But spending a dozen years in prison will sure teach you things.

Some of you say that killing is bad so you are fine with killing these people. Nonsense. If killing is bad, it should be bad always (unless it's a life-or-death scenario, you know). As many people said, two rights don't make a wrong.

So let's see: killing people is immoral. Killing people is more expensive. Killing can't be undone. And spending years and years waiting for the final day, knowing that today might be your final day in the Earth, it's a cruel torture, even bigger than spending years and years in a prison.

And, finally, killing a convicts means that you believe in the worst of the people, that there isn't any chance for them to pay for their crimes, think about what they have done and rehabilitate. I myself think otherwise- I believe there is such chance. So I'd rather have them spend years and years and years in prison thinking about what they did and paying for it, before giving them a second chance. And if they do it again? Life imprisonment, for what's left of their lives.

But really, if you have spent 30 years in prison, you'll get out with 50/60 years unless you were really young when you got caught. And, when you are that old, chances of going back to your old misdeeds aren't really that huge, unless you are a psychopath. And they aren't that common, either.

A Pixy
April 12th, 2010, 12:26 PM
The death penalty should only be given out on murder.

Not rape.

Not vandalism.

Just murder.

I'd tl;dr, but I dun wanna. >_<

xPsychosocial
April 12th, 2010, 12:30 PM
I believe in it to an extent but like most things it has it's downsides.

I believe it's fair if you take a life you should lose your own. Some might argue that they wouldn't learn their lesson, as good a point as that is I just think it should work that way.
Then again it people should only be executed after a long trial and ensuring that all the evidence is checked thoroughly to prevent an innocent person being convicted wrongly and being put to death for crimes they didn't commit.

hyperblast81
April 14th, 2010, 05:02 PM
I really don't know whether I support or not. I mean there are logical arguments from BOTH sides. Coin toss anyone? JKJK.

But really, I support considering, if a relative gets killed, I think I would swear vengeance and then campaign vigourously in order to get him executed. But, then, I could have just ruined a chance at getting the killer back to normal. Thats the problem it's a CHANCE, life just has too many variables to make a good decision and I think I would just take the chance that he is never going to be normal and kill him. I would rather kill someone who only did the crime once than take the risk that he will break out of prison and kill more.

Just my two cents and feel free to contradict, and yes, I am being a little hypocritical

Yoshimi
April 14th, 2010, 05:27 PM
Since I like the eye for an eye saying, and I don't ever think there will be a completely successful way of execution, I'm against it.
There is also the chance that the person being executed can very well be innocent, and you can't revive someone. It's also more expensive to have court cases involve the death penalty than to just throw them in prison for life.

Yes. They need to be taught a lesson, or obviously they won't learn not to kill people.

I thought that's what prison was for :/

Guillermo
April 16th, 2010, 01:13 AM
When the saying, "an eye for an eye" was made, I don't think it was supposed to include death. I do support the Death Penalty, by all means, but not because there's no room in jail. That's just stupid. Because there's no room in jail, you're just going to stick someone on a chair and fry them to death when they didn't commit that serious of a crime? If you murder someone, you're left with that hanging over your head. Really, I think they're going to kill themselves emotionally without anyone needing to do something. Unless they're psycopaths, but like Went said, you don't come across a lot of them IRL. If it was an intentional murder, then by all means I believe they should suffer for that. However, people murder others accidentally. Do you think they should be put on the chair or hanged? It's still murder, but it wasn't intentional. Someone answer me that.

Also, I don't like this whole "it costs more to..." Why? Because that's like putting money on someone elses life.

Yuoaman
April 16th, 2010, 04:17 AM
Only in certain cases.

There are some criminals that just cannot be rehabilitated, and those are the ones who require the death penalty. Those who can change probably will after spending a good portion of their life locked away.

Draggie
April 16th, 2010, 07:30 PM
Nevermind, I don't approve of the religious people who approve of it, It almost makes me sick to see that most religious people don't even value life, they just.... you know what, forget about it~