Do you believe in the death penalty?

[Timbjerr]

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]

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]

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]

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 :).

 

[LethalTexture]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

I think it is a good idea if you kill people then you should die.

 

[Aureol]

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]

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]

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]

I don't believe in it. Everyone has a right to live

 

[PokemonLeagueChamp]

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]

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]

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]

I say we have a fight to the death between the criminal and a prison officer (chosen at random).

 

[PokemonLeagueChamp]

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]

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]

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.