What do you think about death penalty? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

What do you think about death penalty?

Navratil
09-23-2011, 08:00 AM
I can't believe that Troy Davis is killed although there were so many questions in the end...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-20/troy-davis-clemency-denied/50475190/1

What do you think about death penalty in general?

Do people have the right to judge about other people's life?

Navratil
09-23-2011, 08:06 AM
Do people have the right to judge about other people's life?

In fact people also judge about other people's life by sending them to jail. That is just necessary in a society not being the Wild West.

And I don't see that as a punishment but just as a needfulness to provide crime and protect the majority.

I don't think that a state has the right to kill people!

It's also the wrong signal because it shows that there is a legitimation for killing.

VolandriFan
09-23-2011, 08:19 AM
Take a look at the inflated suicide figures for people in prisons, and this is despite constant supervision. Death is the easy way out, leave the worst of the worst to rot in prison for the rest of their natural lives.

Johnny Groove
09-23-2011, 12:34 PM
Only when the justice system has proven w/o reasonable doubt.

Then, yes, I support the death penalty.

Why waste tax dollars from innocent citizens to feed and house a convict who deserves the death penalty?

Castafiore
09-23-2011, 12:45 PM
If wasting tax money is a concern: there have been several reports stating that the entire procedure leading up the death penalty + the actual execution is more expensive for the tax payer than putting somebody away for life.

Example of such a report: California Cost Study 2011 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/california-cost-study-2011)

jmf07
09-23-2011, 12:57 PM
Makes no sense why it is used as widely as it is. There is the possibility of executing someone who is innocent and as the poster above points out in many cases the whole process costs more than just letting them rot in jail because of the very lengthy appeal process. Perhaps there are legitimate arguments for using it for the worst of crimes such as war crimes but then again in some cases you run the risk that they will be seen as martyrs.

Har-Tru
09-23-2011, 01:56 PM
Only when the justice system has proven w/o reasonable doubt.

Then, yes, I support the death penalty.

Why waste tax dollars from innocent citizens to feed and house a convict who deserves the death penalty?

As Castafiore said, executing someone is actually more expensive than life sentence.

And secondly, if money is a concern, I fail to see how killing the person is the best solution. I propose making the prisoners work until they pay for their expenses at the very least.

Death penalty is a barbarity. And the Troy Davis case is a legalised crime.

out_here_grindin
09-23-2011, 02:16 PM
One of the few things that the Catholic Church's position nails. That it should never be used when there is the required means to keep the prisoner barred from society to keep it safe. If there is not the means to keep the prisoner from society and they can still be dangerous, only then is the death penalty justified.

Sofonda Cox
09-23-2011, 02:19 PM
State murder is not the answer.

Getta
09-23-2011, 02:31 PM
should have been abolished worldwide cause the only purpose it serves is retribution or revenge.

abraxas21
09-23-2011, 02:44 PM
against

i used to be a strong abolitionist back in my teens. i even wrote a long essay about it and exposed it in front of several of my teachers.

nowadays i think i can comprehend the feeling behind it though and i think that, given the circumstances, i could definitely kill a man and feel little remorse afterwards if i feel that he deserved it. nevertheless, state murder is something else entirely and i will never support it.

abraxas21
09-23-2011, 02:48 PM
As Castafiore said, executing someone is actually more expensive than life sentence.

And secondly, if money is a concern, I fail to see how killing the person is the best solution. I propose making the prisoners work until they pay for their expenses at the very least.

this is something very important that often gets overlooked.

when we take money into account for determining the validity of the death penality (as many do), we're actually putting a price to human life. would anybody want to live in such a society?

Tommy_Vercetti
09-23-2011, 03:44 PM
The only questions surrounding the Troy Davis case is why there has been no federal investigation into these "activists" giving bribes and convincing many of these black witnesses (not all) to back up on their testimony after 17-22 years of no one changing their story.

The death penalty is flawed, but only because of it's constantly delayed enforcement, not because of it's use itself. Troy Davis should have been executed 20 years ago. The endless appeals and stays are just a huge red flag about how screwed up the justice system is. Starting with the jury system itself.

rocketassist
09-23-2011, 04:35 PM
Against and Troy Davis is a reason for this.

To be fair to the US at least they do it behind closed doors. Countries like Iran and Saudi carry out public stonings and beheadings and the crowd celebrate as their bloodthirsty desires are fulfilled. This shit is wrong on so many levels.

If they're gonna do that, do it in a prison cell.

Johnny Groove
09-23-2011, 05:20 PM
As Castafiore said, executing someone is actually more expensive than life sentence.

And secondly, if money is a concern, I fail to see how killing the person is the best solution. I propose making the prisoners work until they pay for their expenses at the very least.

Death penalty is a barbarity. And the Troy Davis case is a legalised crime.

If it is more expensive the electric chair or lethal injection, then your idea of making prisoners work makes sense.

Har-Tru
09-23-2011, 06:59 PM
One of the few things that the Catholic Church's position nails. That it should never be used when there is the required means to keep the prisoner barred from society to keep it safe. If there is not the means to keep the prisoner from society and they can still be dangerous, only then is the death penalty justified.

should have been abolished worldwide cause the only purpose it serves is retribution or revenge.

These mutually supportive statements are obviously true, since I don't think there is a single state that applies death penalty that couldn't keep the prisoner locked for life if they put some effort into it.

GOAT = Fed
09-23-2011, 07:59 PM
The fact that the state can make the decision to take away the life of its own citizens slightly disturbs me. This along with a lot of other reasons make me against the death penalty. It is an utterly barbaric way to dish our revenge. Besides you can make someone just rot in jail repenting their mistakes.

BigJohn
09-23-2011, 08:31 PM
Perhaps it is a little harsh... punished by death.

A solution would be to force those convicted to read each and every post by Clay Death on MTF. Sure, it might be considered cruel and unusual punishment by most of the population, but it is still somewhat more humane than an actual death sentence.

Death penalty 2.0

Sunset of Age
09-23-2011, 09:00 PM
Barbaric. Enough said.

Even more barbaric is the fact that there are only two countries in the world that have not ratified the Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child), which prohibits capital punishment on youngsters.

Guess which two countries.
Somalia.... and the USA.

Be ashamed of yourselves.

The Magician
09-23-2011, 09:13 PM
Bring back the guillotine. Painless, quick, efficient, revolutionary terror is not only justified, it is necessary. However since the American state is criminal of course I oppose the "death penalty" within that context.

Gagsquet
09-23-2011, 09:32 PM
All the countries where the death penalty is not abolished are not respectable countries.
I would feel shameful to live in a State where death penalty is allowed.

JolŠnGagů
09-23-2011, 10:02 PM
should have been abolished worldwide cause the only purpose it serves is retribution or revenge.

I fully support retribution and revenge... only not by the state.

Death penalty is utterly wrong and should be abolished by every barely civilized nation.

Topspindoctor
09-24-2011, 01:19 AM
Death Penalty is not used enough. Half the people in prisons around the world should be executed. Sadly the world is too politically correct these days and allows pedophiles, rapists and murderers "repent" for the crimes at the expense of taxpayers. Eventually they are set free among normal people to prey on more victims.

In my opinion if you commit a heinous crime like **** or murder, you forfeit your human rights and should be put down like a wild animal. It's disgusting how criminals today get a little more than a slap on the wrist for the worst crimes.

Seingeist
09-24-2011, 04:44 AM
Completely in support of the death penalty.

To all of those who are so against the idea of a "state" having the right to exercise the death penalty: THE STATE, and the state alone, guarantees your life, "rights," and property.

In the absence of a state, the anarchic "state of nature" rules. What this means, essentially, is that you can be killed or robbed at any time, for any reason, and you have no recourse whatsoever except for what your own personal might allows.

In other words, "the state" is (among other things) a condition of possibility for your very life. We very much take for granted that people are not allowed to simply murder us and steal all of our possessions. But what prevents or deters them from doing this? THE STATE.

That's the reason, for example, that a compulsory military draft, while unfortunate, is justifiable. The state is justified in demanding your service, potentially costing your life, because it is the state that has guaranteed and made your life possible in the first place. You owe the state, however much you may dislike the idea and shirk your responsibilities as a citizen.

When a person makes himself an enemy of the state and threatens its well-being (usually by breaking one or more of its more serious laws, such as murder), the state is justified in taking the life of that individual (in much the same way that murder by self-defense is justified if someone is trying to kill you). A person's "right to life" is only guaranteed by the state, and if he forfeits his relationship to that state, he also forfeits the rights that were guaranteed thereunder.

The death penalty is not so much an act of "revenge" as it is an act of purging a state of the enemies that threaten it's well-being.

Rousseau lays all of this out far more elegantly than I ever could in The Social Contract. Highly recommended reading for all of the childishly confused subversives in these forums who haven't the foggiest idea of the political reality that envelops them.

Mjau!
09-24-2011, 04:52 AM
Only when the justice system has proven w/o reasonable doubt.

Shouldn't that be required for imprisonment as well?

Mjau!
09-24-2011, 05:07 AM
Troy Davies was a sacrifice The State demanded. Only the soul of a sinner may calm His terrible wrath.

Orka_n
09-24-2011, 05:29 AM
When a person makes himself an enemy of the state and threatens its well-being (usually by breaking one or more of its more serious laws, such as murder), the state is justified in taking the life of that individual (in much the same way that murder by self-defense is justified if someone is trying to kill you). A person's "right to life" is only guaranteed by the state, and if he forfeits his relationship to that state, he also forfeits the rights that were guaranteed thereunder.

The death penalty is not so much an act of "revenge" as it is an act of purging a state of the enemies that threaten it's well-being.Pretty words without substance. The state does not own its citizens. The state consists of its citizens. Human beings (even deranged ones) can never be compared to malfunctioning bots which can be disposed of.

As have already been said in this thread: the death penalty is an unnecessarily inhumane solution when in most cases it's possible to lock the criminal away until he dies. Really, imo no judge or jury owns the right to effectively end a person's life.

partygirl
09-24-2011, 05:41 AM
I don't agree with it because it's the type of thing if you get it wrong once, that is 1 too many.
What government (or body of ) could you trust to not make one mistake?

Har-Tru
09-24-2011, 09:26 AM
Completely in support of the death penalty.

To all of those who are so against the idea of a "state" having the right to exercise the death penalty: THE STATE, and the state alone, guarantees your life, "rights," and property.

In the absence of a state, the anarchic "state of nature" rules. What this means, essentially, is that you can be killed or robbed at any time, for any reason, and you have no recourse whatsoever except for what your own personal might allows.

In other words, "the state" is (among other things) a condition of possibility for your very life. We very much take for granted that people are not allowed to simply murder us and steal all of our possessions. But what prevents or deters them from doing this? THE STATE.

That's the reason, for example, that a compulsory military draft, while unfortunate, is justifiable. The state is justified in demanding your service, potentially costing your life, because it is the state that has guaranteed and made your life possible in the first place. You owe the state, however much you may dislike the idea and shirk your responsibilities as a citizen.

When a person makes himself an enemy of the state and threatens its well-being (usually by breaking one or more of its more serious laws, such as murder), the state is justified in taking the life of that individual (in much the same way that murder by self-defense is justified if someone is trying to kill you). A person's "right to life" is only guaranteed by the state, and if he forfeits his relationship to that state, he also forfeits the rights that were guaranteed thereunder.

The death penalty is not so much an act of "revenge" as it is an act of purging a state of the enemies that threaten it's well-being.

Rousseau lays all of this out far more elegantly than I ever could in The Social Contract. Highly recommended reading for all of the childishly confused subversives in these forums who haven't the foggiest idea of the political reality that envelops them.

You talk of the state as if it were some sort of god-like element. The state is no stand-alone thing. It is the result of a given society's wish to organise themselves and create an institution that will have the monopoly in exercising universal legislation and executing it.

Whatever principle we cause that institution to operate under is not unappealable, but subject to the principles of that society. You may say you hold the view that, since the state is obliged to safeguard a person's life, it is therefore its prerogative to take that life away under certain circumstances. You're entitled to it, but don't make it sound as if it ought to be a universal truth. It is merely one position, one that I happen to disagree with.

As I see it, it is the state's obligation to guarantee an individual's right to live at all times. Life is to me an inalienable right; to you, a legal right.

JolŠnGagů
09-24-2011, 09:37 AM
Completely in support of the death penalty.

To all of those who are so against the idea of a "state" having the right to exercise the death penalty: THE STATE, and the state alone, guarantees your life, "rights," and property.

In the absence of a state, the anarchic "state of nature" rules. What this means, essentially, is that you can be killed or robbed at any time, for any reason, and you have no recourse whatsoever except for what your own personal might allows.

In other words, "the state" is (among other things) a condition of possibility for your very life. We very much take for granted that people are not allowed to simply murder us and steal all of our possessions. But what prevents or deters them from doing this? THE STATE.

That's the reason, for example, that a compulsory military draft, while unfortunate, is justifiable. The state is justified in demanding your service, potentially costing your life, because it is the state that has guaranteed and made your life possible in the first place. You owe the state, however much you may dislike the idea and shirk your responsibilities as a citizen.

When a person makes himself an enemy of the state and threatens its well-being (usually by breaking one or more of its more serious laws, such as murder), the state is justified in taking the life of that individual (in much the same way that murder by self-defense is justified if someone is trying to kill you). A person's "right to life" is only guaranteed by the state, and if he forfeits his relationship to that state, he also forfeits the rights that were guaranteed thereunder.

The death penalty is not so much an act of "revenge" as it is an act of purging a state of the enemies that threaten it's well-being.

Rousseau lays all of this out far more elegantly than I ever could in The Social Contract. Highly recommended reading for all of the childishly confused subversives in these forums who haven't the foggiest idea of the political reality that envelops them.


What a huge of load of pretentious, deceiving bullshit for dummies.

Did you read The Social Contract in your perfect French? It shows...

Shirogane
09-24-2011, 10:51 AM
I don't agree with it because it's the type of thing if you get it wrong once, that is 1 too many.
What government (or body of ) could you trust to not make one mistake?It's true some people deserve to die, but this.

Gagsquet
09-24-2011, 11:24 AM
The death penalty is not so much an act of "revenge" as it is an act of purging a state of the enemies that threaten it's well-being.

Rousseau lays all of this out far more elegantly than I ever could in The Social Contract. Highly recommended reading for all of the childishly confused subversives in these forums who haven't the foggiest idea of the political reality that envelops them.

One of the few Rousseau's mistakes.

"Every criminal becomes a traitor and an enemy to the state. He ceases to be a citizen, and must be removed from society for its protection"

I like Rousseau but this sentence is stupid. Why a traitor to the state should be removed of it? It makes no sense.

Sham Kay
09-24-2011, 12:05 PM
Personally speaking, I'd rather be quickly and relatively painlessly put to death than have to live out my life in jail, or even worse, spend 5 years in a restricted space going mad and not really learning my lesson, just to be eventually let out into a world that has passed me by and doesn't accept me due to my past.

So I think it's underused, especially if there's so little space in prisons.. the way they talk about prisoners is akin to talking about animals, why treat them any differently? Put down the bad seeds, especially repeat offenders. Put them out of their misery and help society at the same time. Sounds harsh, so I'd say give serious offenders a choice just to balance it out and be nice because we're human and as such apparently we automatically deserve better treatment than regular animals: Live out their lives in jail or get death.

I am against the sentencing of people who haven't been properly proved of doing their crime, which happens alot. Getting put to death due to a crime you didn't do, but the judge sees it as sufficient proof even though it isn't would be a bummer. To avoid the suffering, house arrest should be employed more often in scenarios where it isn't clear-cut.

EddieNero
09-24-2011, 12:17 PM
Monsters who commit intentional murders should be punished in the same way how they've treated their victims.
It refers to human and animal murderers as well.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.
Soft policy towards murderers leads to prison's overload and keeps criminals in a privileged position.

Chase Visa
09-24-2011, 02:21 PM
I dunno.

On one hand, if they did crimes like Osama and those sorts of people, then yes they should be executed.

On the other hand, it's disgusting if they used it for something like drug smuggling, and the person executed may be innocent, so if you execute them, how will you pardon them if they are found to be innocent.

Also, wouldn't the prisoners prefer the death penalty rather than life without parole?

tangerine_dream
09-24-2011, 07:14 PM
It kinda works both ways doesn't it? I'll bet Norway wished they had the death penalty after 7/22.

If wasting tax money is a concern: there have been several reports stating that the entire procedure leading up the death penalty + the actual execution is more expensive for the tax payer than putting somebody away for life.

Example of such a report: California Cost Study 2011 (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/california-cost-study-2011)
The execution itself does not cost taxpayers more than incarceration, it's the appeal process which can last for years.

Orka_n
09-24-2011, 07:30 PM
It kinda works both ways doesn't it? I'll bet Norway wished they had the death penalty after 7/22.Wrong. Norway has responded to the tragic event this summer with the utmost dignity. Trying to recover as a country has been priority #1, not getting revenge.

tangerine_dream
09-24-2011, 07:43 PM
Wrong. Norway has responded to the tragic event this summer with the utmost dignity. Trying to recover as a country has been priority #1, not getting revenge.
The death penalty isn't about revenge.

LurŚs said polls show 25% of Norwegians are in favor of the death penalty (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-07-27-Norway-punishment-lenient-death-penalty_n.htm); among Progress Party members, who are conservative, the figure is 50%. But even the right wing in Norway is not prepared to look toward the U.S. system of life sentences without parole for murder.

"My sense is that people tend to feel that the penitentiary system and the penalties are insufficiently punitive" in Norway, LurŚs said. "But I think most Norwegians perceive the U.S. criminal system to be far too harsh."

Strange that Norway would think the US system of "life sentences without parole" is much too harsh for the likes of Breivik. He would have most likely received the McVeigh treatment here (i.e., fast-tracked to the electric chair).

My ultimate point being: no system is 100% accurate. For every Troy Davis who is "wrongly" put to death there is a Breivik who desperately needs to be taken out of society's gene pool.

Sofonda Cox
09-24-2011, 10:00 PM
My ultimate point being: no system is 100% accurate. For every Troy Davis who is "wrongly" put to death there is a Breivik who desperately needs to be taken out of society's gene pool.

I'm confused, are you saying that it's okay to kill an innocent man sometimes so that the truely evil ones get killed also?

Pirata.
09-24-2011, 10:56 PM
Definitely against it, except for war crimes, people like bin Laden and so on.

By the way, I had no idea that the US was still doing executions by firing squad. A man chose to die this way a few years ago.

star
09-24-2011, 10:58 PM
Definitely against it, except for war crimes, people like bin Laden and so on.

By the way, I had no idea that the US was still doing executions by firing squad. A man chose to die this way a few years ago.

Utah.

I think that’s the only state. Not sure if it’s still a choice though.

Edit: Those sentenced to death no longer have the choice of a firing squad, but since the law taking away that choice was not retroactive, those previously sentenced to death still had the option.

From Wikipedia.

A law passed on March 15, 2004 banned execution by firing squad in Utah, but since that specific law was not retroactive, four inmates on Utah's death row (one, Roberto Arguelles, died of natural causes while on death row) could still opt for execution by firing squad.

Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed by five anonymous officers on June 18, 2010. In February 1996, Gardner threatened to sue to force the state of Utah to execute him by firing squad. He said that he preferred this method of execution because of his "Mormon heritage." Gardner also felt that lawmakers were trying to eliminate the firing squad, in opposition to popular opinion in Utah, because of concern over the state's image in the 2002 Winter Olympics.

Since 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated in the U.S., Utah has executed 7 people. The state has a population of just under 3 million.

Texas with a population of nearly 25 million has had 475 executions. So about 6 times the population and about 9 times the executions.

Here’s the list of executions by state.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/number-executions-state-and-region-1976

Sunset of Age
09-24-2011, 11:29 PM
Completely in support of the death penalty.

To all of those who are so against the idea of a "state" having the right to exercise the death penalty: THE STATE, and the state alone, guarantees your life, "rights," and property.

In the absence of a state, the anarchic "state of nature" rules. What this means, essentially, is that you can be killed or robbed at any time, for any reason, and you have no recourse whatsoever except for what your own personal might allows.

In other words, "the state" is (among other things) a condition of possibility for your very life. We very much take for granted that people are not allowed to simply murder us and steal all of our possessions. But what prevents or deters them from doing this? THE STATE.

That's the reason, for example, that a compulsory military draft, while unfortunate, is justifiable. The state is justified in demanding your service, potentially costing your life, because it is the state that has guaranteed and made your life possible in the first place. You owe the state, however much you may dislike the idea and shirk your responsibilities as a citizen.

When a person makes himself an enemy of the state and threatens its well-being (usually by breaking one or more of its more serious laws, such as murder), the state is justified in taking the life of that individual (in much the same way that murder by self-defense is justified if someone is trying to kill you). A person's "right to life" is only guaranteed by the state, and if he forfeits his relationship to that state, he also forfeits the rights that were guaranteed thereunder.

The death penalty is not so much an act of "revenge" as it is an act of purging a state of the enemies that threaten it's well-being.

Rousseau lays all of this out far more elegantly than I ever could in The Social Contract. Highly recommended reading for all of the childishly confused subversives in these forums who haven't the foggiest idea of the political reality that envelops them.

Don't be so ultimately IGNORANT.
If my country had the Death Penalty (fortunately it doesn't) there would have been at least FOUR innocent people been executed in the past couple of years. Would YOU take the responsibility of that decision? :o

star
09-24-2011, 11:39 PM
The death penalty is not so much an act of "revenge" as it is an act of purging a state of the enemies that threaten it's well-being.


This is how the Soviet Union justified killing millions and millions of people. Enemies of the state.

Itís a flawed justification for the death penalty no matter how elegantly stated. We may all become enemies of the state. My country was founded by enemies of the state. Most countries have heroes and martyrs who were enemies of the state.

Exactly how do you make yourself an enemy of the state and who determines that you are an enemy of the state? You write ďcrimes, such as murderĒ which leads me to believe that you would sanction the death penalty for reasons beyond someone committing murder.

star
09-24-2011, 11:42 PM
The death penalty isn't about revenge.



Strange that Norway would think the US system of "life sentences without parole" is much too harsh for the likes of Breivik. He would have most likely received the McVeigh treatment here (i.e., fast-tracked to the electric chair).

My ultimate point being: no system is 100% accurate. For every Troy Davis who is "wrongly" put to death there is a Breivik who desperately needs to be taken out of society's gene pool.

McVeigh was not fast tracked to the electric chair. He wanted a quick execution and did not want any appeal. Also ó and you know this ó not an electric chair.

As for someone being taken out of the gene pool, life imprisonment fulfills that requirement. Also ó and you know this ó removing one person from reproducing does not in any way shape or form alter the human gene pool.

Orka_n
09-25-2011, 12:10 AM
The death penalty isn't about revenge.Retribution, "justice", whatever. Call it what you want. There are other ways to protect society than frying a person's brain.

Strange that Norway would think the US system of "life sentences without parole" is much too harsh for the likes of Breivik. He would have most likely received the McVeigh treatment here (i.e., fast-tracked to the electric chair).Contrary to popular belief though, USA isn't always right.
My ultimate point being: no system is 100% accurate. For every Troy Davis who is "wrongly" put to death there is a Breivik who desperately needs to be taken out of society's gene pool.That's a pretty poor "ultimate point", I have to say. The two systems aren't comparable. If you imprison a person for life and he turns out to be innocent, he just gets released. It's fairly hard to release a guy who turns out to be innocent if he's already been executed. :facepalm: And the thought that someone "desperately needs to be taken out of society's gene pool" is just your personal feelings. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but don't speak like everyone shares it.

rocketassist
09-25-2011, 12:29 AM
McVeigh didn't die in the electric chair.

star
09-25-2011, 12:48 AM
Retribution, "justice", whatever. Call it what you want. There are other ways to protect society than frying a person's brain.

Contrary to popular belief though, USA isn't always right.
That's a pretty poor "ultimate point", I have to say. The two systems aren't comparable. If you imprison a person for life and he turns out to be innocent, he just gets released. It's fairly hard to release a guy who turns out to be innocent if he's already been executed. :facepalm: And the thought that someone "desperately needs to be taken out of society's gene pool" is just your personal feelings. You are entitled to your opinion of course, but don't speak like everyone shares it.

I think we all know the wrongly executing an innocent person argument. To me the real issue is should a person be executed even if the crime was horrific and the person has admitted guilt, i.e. in cases where there is no question of innocence. To me itís a question of whether the people want to vest the state with the authority to take a human life. If yes, then under what circumstances and safeguards and serving what purpose.

McVeigh didn't die in the electric chair.

Yeah. We all know that. Tangy knows it too. Hyperbole. Just like the gene pool part. The problem I have with that sort of polemic is that it keeps us from discussing the real issues, and I do believe there are real issues.

jayjay
09-25-2011, 01:50 AM
Do people have the right to judge about other people's life?

If you are responsible for willingly taking the life of another person - then you should lose all rights to your own.

It is disgusting that people who commit murder have the opportunity to - in some cases, far too many - walk the streets again at some point down the line. While the victim will never have the chance to do the same and their family and friends are left to live with their loss forever.

There is no justice in this world.

Orka_n
09-25-2011, 02:09 AM
I think we all know the wrongly executing an innocent person argument. To me the real issue is should a person be executed even if the crime was horrific and the person has admitted guilt, i.e. in cases where there is no question of innocence. To me itís a question of whether the people want to vest the state with the authority to take a human life. If yes, then under what circumstances and safeguards and serving what purpose.Is this addressed to me? Because I have already stated my opinion about that earlier in the thread. :shrug:

Johnny Groove
09-25-2011, 02:23 AM
I think we all know the wrongly executing an innocent person argument. To me the real issue is should a person be executed even if the crime was horrific and the person has admitted guilt, i.e. in cases where there is no question of innocence. To me itís a question of whether the people want to vest the state with the authority to take a human life. If yes, then under what circumstances and safeguards and serving what purpose.



Yeah. We all know that. Tangy knows it too. Hyperbole. Just like the gene pool part. The problem I have with that sort of polemic is that it keeps us from discussing the real issues, and I do believe there are real issues.

Star, what are these real issues?

star
09-25-2011, 02:40 AM
Star, what are these real issues?

As I outlined: Should it be in the power of the state to deprive a person of life. We all agree that the state can deprive a person of freedom, but some are reluctant to extend that to life. What are the reasons for not so doing.

There seems to be agreement that a person who commits murder deserves a penalty and apparently most agree there is an element of punishment in that penalty. Punishment has various elements. Revenge is something we reject as wrong, but is it wrong? Isnít that a part of punishment? Punishment also is meant to prevent the act from happening again. A person is supposed to learn from punishment. Deterrence to others who observe the punishment is also part of what punishment is designed to accomplish. What is it that we hope to achieve with murderers and are the punishments we have able to accomplish what we want.

Then here is also the idea of justice for society which I believe is the idea underlying any kind of state imposed penalty. Society has to perceive justice has been done. Itís the common manís reward in a sense for doing the right thing.

All of these things are real issues.

Also what is humane and civilized factors in. Most of us in western societies agree that bodily mutilation is not appropriate punishment. Yet, why do we agree on this issue? Certainly it saves money on prisons which is an argument some use about the death penalty. Is the death penalty simply the ultimate form of bodily mutilation?

I think reasonable people can disagree. Itís interesting to me why some societies agree on one thing and others on another.

jayjay
09-25-2011, 03:26 AM
Who is we?

Revenge and retribution are the closest things we have to justice in this pathetic world, but unfortunately most murderers for want of a better phrase, get away with murder.

While those of us who wish this world to be completely rid of those who are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (along with countless appeals and re-trials) are considered by some - as barbaric (I believe that was said by someone in this thread). The irony is not amusing.

I detest how often debates over the death penalty turn into a debate on the rights of murderers. I'm not saying that has happened here in this thread - although it surely will, eventually - but history tells me it will.

The rights and wants of the victim(s) and their family are forgotten completely. Apparently there is something noble in keeping murderers alive, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

rocketassist
09-25-2011, 03:52 AM
The funny thing about the Troy Davis case is how hypocritical the American media are about the Amanda Knox case in Italy, it really beggars belief.

abraxas21
09-25-2011, 04:34 AM
If you are responsible for willingly taking the life of another person - then you should lose all rights to your own.

It is disgusting that people who commit murder have the opportunity to - in some cases, far too many - walk the streets again at some point down the line. While the victim will never have the chance to do the same and their family and friends are left to live with their loss forever.

There is no justice in this world.

that doesnt seem unjust to me at all actually

Pirata.
09-25-2011, 04:38 AM
The funny thing about the Troy Davis case is how hypocritical the American media are about the Amanda Knox case in Italy, it really beggars belief.

Similar with Casey Anthony--there was some backlash but now she's getting media and book deals.

Hokit
09-25-2011, 04:58 AM
Do people have the right to judge about other people's life?

No, because I doubt anyone knows enough about life itself or its complexities.

star
09-25-2011, 05:38 AM
Who is we?

Revenge and retribution are the closest things we have to justice in this pathetic world, but unfortunately most murderers for want of a better phrase, get away with murder.

While those of us who wish this world to be completely rid of those who are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (along with countless appeals and re-trials) are considered by some - as barbaric (I believe that was said by someone in this thread). The irony is not amusing.

I detest how often debates over the death penalty turn into a debate on the rights of murderers. I'm not saying that has happened here in this thread - although it surely will, eventually - but history tells me it will.

The rights and wants of the victim(s) and their family are forgotten completely. Apparently there is something noble in keeping murderers alive, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

I don’t think one can divorce retribution from the justice system. If that element is neglected, a society as well as victims may feel justice has not been done. To me, really, it’s a debate about how does society operate to provide justice. What people in one society see as appropriate punishment another may not.

Although personally, I do not like the death penalty at all, I understand it’s an area where reasonable people can disagree.

People get heated on both sides of the issue.

I do have to say that of course the rights of the accused/convicted do have to be taken into account.

No, because I doubt anyone knows enough about life itself or its complexities.

But this is exactly what the justice system must do. People aren’t omnipotent, but what is the alternative to having people pass judgement on those who violate the rules society has decided upon?

The Navajo way, would be to have a healing ceremony for the wrong doer, but no punishment beyond that. That might work in a society where people can wander over vast territories, but doesn’t seem workable in an urban society. And, that’s the traditional Navajo way. Today, the Navajo government passes decrees punishments to the extent that it has jurisdiction over the crime.

jayjay
09-25-2011, 06:34 AM
I don’t think one can divorce retribution from the justice system. If that element is neglected, a society as well as victims may feel justice has not been done. To me, really, it’s a debate about how does society operate to provide justice. What people in one society see as appropriate punishment another may not.

Although personally, I do not like the death penalty at all, I understand it’s an area where reasonable people can disagree.

People get heated on both sides of the issue.

I do have to say that of course the rights of the accused/convicted do have to be taken into account.

In my experience in debates on this issue, it is always those who are against the death penalty who end up being unable and/or unwilling to accept that it's reasonable to be for the death penalty. And that just becomes infuriating and is a real turn-off for debate on the subject.

I perfectly understand the case against the death penalty, of course there are flaws to it and injustices against innocent people can, have and will occur - although far less readily I would guess, than injustices against people who end up being locked up.

What I find annoyingly amusing is how some people can't justify the possibility of an innocent man or woman being sentenced to death (which won't actually come into being for years in most cases), but it's perfectly okay to be given a life sentence in prison for an innocent man or woman? As if the latter is not in some cases to be considered worse than death itself.

The death penalty is not a perfect solution and I doubt anyone has ever claimed it to be, but I fail to see how it is any worse than the world and society we currently live in.

I had this same debate at work not too long ago and it got pretty heated - and a common theme of the argument against the death penalty is that it won't deter criminals seeking to murder. And again, it's just amusing how that possibility somehow equates to meaning that being locked up for a few years is a deterrant? We know full well it isn't.

The idea of a person who has committed cold blooded murder being "rehabilitated" and later allowed to melt into society repulses me. Even though I can appreciate that there are plenty of people out there who want to bring out the good and reformed in those who have done wrong, I fail to see how justice is served in such an instance.

You take a life or lives, you spend some time in an environment where you mingle with like-minded individuals, and then you are later released having possibly seen the error of your ways.

And the victim? Oh, nevermind.

The idea of retribution is a must in sentencing, it is usually all a victim's family and friends can hold onto - to see that justice is done. We all know it won't bring the victim back, but that surely has never been the point.

You would think that it is perfectly logical to believe that if you choose to end someone's life, you lose right to your own - but then again, that's the fucked up world we live in, unfortunately.

MaxPower
09-25-2011, 09:46 AM
No punishment is deterring to some types of criminals. Reason is that 1) they don't expect to be caught or 2) they don't even think about getting caught/consequences until well after or 3) don't even care.

Only good argument I see for death penalty is that it provides closure for the relatives of the victims. Must be like a nightmare having to hear about appeals every other year and have to go through the pain again. But as discussed, the thought of executing someone innocent and that the decision can't be corrected are issues not easily fixed.

Most criminals are "innocent" according to themselves. Most believe it so hard that even if they were guilty beyond all doubt they could still pass a lie-detector test saying they are innocent. One reason is ofc that many horrible crimes are committed under the influence of drugs or during some mental breakdown so many are not even aware themselves exactly what happened. Witnesses are often unreliable and as seen some change their stories 10+ years later to create a new twist of bullshit. With that in mind the society could probably only execute the ones who actually confess. Ironically those that confess on an early stage sometimes do it as a deal to not get death penalty afaik.


Personally I would like to see the worst criminals work of their sins daily in some grueling and physically tormenting work. Like spending they entire days digging ditches (even if we got machines today). Just to keep the hands busy and the body tired. Also feed them some real cheap and monotonous food. Everyday should be so depressing for them that suicide would seem like a good option.

If someone killed my family for example I would find more comfort in the guilty suffering daily than I would get waiting 10 years to get a quick and almost entirely painless lethal injection.

jayjay
09-25-2011, 10:41 AM
No punishment is deterring to some types of criminals. Reason is that 1) they don't expect to be caught or 2) they don't even think about getting caught/consequences until well after or 3) don't even care.

Only good argument I see for death penalty is that it provides closure for the relatives of the victims. Must be like a nightmare having to hear about appeals every other year and have to go through the pain again. But as discussed, the thought of executing someone innocent and that the decision can't be corrected are issues not easily fixed.

Most criminals are "innocent" according to themselves. Most believe it so hard that even if they were guilty beyond all doubt they could still pass a lie-detector test saying they are innocent. One reason is ofc that many horrible crimes are committed under the influence of drugs or during some mental breakdown so many are not even aware themselves exactly what happened. Witnesses are often unreliable and as seen some change their stories 10+ years later to create a new twist of bullshit. With that in mind the society could probably only execute the ones who actually confess. Ironically those that confess on an early stage sometimes do it as a deal to not get death penalty afaik.


Personally I would like to see the worst criminals work of their sins daily in some grueling and physically tormenting work. Like spending they entire days digging ditches (even if we got machines today). Just to keep the hands busy and the body tired. Also feed them some real cheap and monotonous food. Everyday should be so depressing for them that suicide would seem like a good option.

If someone killed my family for example I would find more comfort in the guilty suffering daily than I would get waiting 10 years to get a quick and almost entirely painless lethal injection.

That would be my ideal, too. I'd rather they were tortured every minute of every day...but that would be barbaric. :D

Instead they get three meals a day, shelter and the use of internet and cable television.

Har-Tru
09-25-2011, 10:53 AM
If you are responsible for willingly taking the life of another person - then you should lose all rights to your own.

It is disgusting that people who commit murder have the opportunity to - in some cases, far too many - walk the streets again at some point down the line. While the victim will never have the chance to do the same and their family and friends are left to live with their loss forever.

There is no justice in this world.

Why do these two have to be mutually exclusive?

Like I said, sentence a murderer to life imprisonment without parole, and make him work until he pays for his expenses at least. I don't care if that's considered forced labour, I'm not asking for them to do inhuman work under inhuman conditions.

star
09-25-2011, 05:02 PM
In my experience in debates on this issue, it is always those who are against the death penalty who end up being unable and/or unwilling to accept that it's reasonable to be for the death penalty. And that just becomes infuriating and is a real turn-off for debate on the subject.

I perfectly understand the case against the death penalty, of course there are flaws to it and injustices against innocent people can, have and will occur - although far less readily I would guess, than injustices against people who end up being locked up.

What I find annoyingly amusing is how some people can't justify the possibility of an innocent man or woman being sentenced to death (which won't actually come into being for years in most cases), but it's perfectly okay to be given a life sentence in prison for an innocent man or woman? As if the latter is not in some cases to be considered worse than death itself.

The death penalty is not a perfect solution and I doubt anyone has ever claimed it to be, but I fail to see how it is any worse than the world and society we currently live in.

I had this same debate at work not too long ago and it got pretty heated - and a common theme of the argument against the death penalty is that it won't deter criminals seeking to murder. And again, it's just amusing how that possibility somehow equates to meaning that being locked up for a few years is a deterrant? We know full well it isn't.

The idea of a person who has committed cold blooded murder being "rehabilitated" and later allowed to melt into society repulses me. Even though I can appreciate that there are plenty of people out there who want to bring out the good and reformed in those who have done wrong, I fail to see how justice is served in such an instance.

You take a life or lives, you spend some time in an environment where you mingle with like-minded individuals, and then you are later released having possibly seen the error of your ways.

And the victim? Oh, nevermind.

The idea of retribution is a must in sentencing, it is usually all a victim's family and friends can hold onto - to see that justice is done. We all know it won't bring the victim back, but that surely has never been the point.

You would think that it is perfectly logical to believe that if you choose to end someone's life, you lose right to your own - but then again, that's the fucked up world we live in, unfortunately.

To my way of thinking (or perhaps my particular indoctrination) punishment for any crime should provide the elements of retribution, `deterrence, and rehabilitation. The question of whether a particular person can be rehabilitated, is another matter and in the U.S. it is a factor in deciding whether the death penalty is the appropriate penalty. Obviously, some people are not candidates for rehabilitation.

Deterence is another matter. In a perfect society I suppose we would all live by the golden rule, and would not perpetrate violence against a person or property simply out of consideration for other people. But, most people I think are aware that if they do these things there are personal penalties to pay — you know, unless the “person” is a corporation. :p

I think we (“we” meaning "you and I”) probably also agree that not every killing merits the death penalty and also that some killings do not even merit punishment at all. So then the issue becomes what killings would merit the most extreme punishment society can impose, and can justice for the aggrieved persons and the perpetrator be achieved without the death penalty. Is locking up a person for life, sufficient? What does the death penalty achieve that life imprisonment does not? Are we acculturated to thinking the death penalty is the appropriate penalty? An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth? It’s difficult for me to judge.

I know that some societies see payment to the family of the victim for death is sufficient justice. That’s interesting to me. But, it comes back to what society itself deems justice to be. Obviously, the death penalty in theory has a great deal of support in the U.S.

Another thing that interests me about life imprisonment which is not an easy thing, is what do you do with someone who continues to kill after being sentenced to life? These people exist. The last person executed in my state, was one of those. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronnie_Lee_Gardner

I wonder how the people of Norway will feel when this mass murderer walks free. He took so many young innocent and promising young lives. Did he calculate the penalty and decide it was worth it? If the penalty had been his own life or never ending imprisonment, would he have carried out the murders?

I’m troubled by all these things, and at different points in my life, I’ve answered them in different ways. But, when it comes to human life as well as incarceration, I think that all of us should struggle and try to come to grips with the issues and take other views different than our own into consideration.

P.S. JayJay I am concerned about locking up an innocent person for life, but I think with life imprisonment, if the person is found innocent at least he can go free at that point, but if a person is dead, there’s nothing that can be done to make matters even a little bit right. The justice system isn’t all it’s cracked up to be though. I think more people in the u.s. are worried about guilty people going free than they are about innocent people being locked up.

Mateya
09-25-2011, 10:41 PM
YES

There are many evil persons out there who really don't deserve to breathe our air, especialy serial killers and serial rapists. I like to watch those FBI files, forensic detectives and similar shows and have seen some totaly sick stuff. How can that kind of person walk around freely again?
I our county the maximum penalty is 20 years, which is bullshit.
There was a man here who kidnapped 3 or 4 women, killed them and then burned them at home in his fireplace. He was charged for 20 years...thank god the bastard died two years before he would be released.

But of course, death penalty only when the guilt has been 100% proven!
The stories of some people who have been executed or spent decades in jail and later found innocent are just heartbreaking...

Sunset of Age
09-26-2011, 12:00 AM
P.S. JayJay I am concerned about locking up an innocent person for life, but I think with life imprisonment, if the person is found innocent at least he can go free at that point, but if a person is dead, thereís nothing that can be done to make matters even a little bit right.

And that's exactly why the death penalty is utterly barbaric.

The justice system isnít all itís cracked up to be though. I think more people in the u.s. are worried about guilty people going free than they are about innocent people being locked up.

Scary but I fear it's true, also the same over here. It should of course be the other way round.

Sunset of Age
09-26-2011, 12:08 AM
But of course, death penalty only when the guilt has been 100% proven!
The stories of some people who have been executed or spent decades in jail and later found innocent are just heartbreaking...

The problem is that it's pretty hard to find 100% proof.
Yes of course, those cases do exist, but mind you... even a confession surely isn't any 100% 'proof'! There are plenty reports of people who confessed a crime under pressure, because they are not all too intelligent, or having psychological problems.

In my country alone in the past decade there have been at least two cases of accused-and-condemned 'killers' who actually confessed a crime they did NOT commit (in both cases, a homicide/murder). (For those who are interested: look up the "Schiedammer Park Moord" and "De Twee van Putten").
Fortunately for these 'killers', justice could be done for them a couple of years later (which they spent in prison, yup). If we'd have had the death penalty, I don't know what would have happened to them as the media and a lot of the public were already virtually crucifying them before they even got sentenced.

A damn scary thought if those people would have been executed innocently, no?

fast_clay
09-26-2011, 12:28 AM
probably doesn't help to evolve man much to kill upon a kill... although, where is this bad energy supposed to then go...? are we meant to simply absorb it...?

Navratil
09-26-2011, 08:48 AM
Personally speaking, I'd rather be quickly and relatively painlessly put to death than have to live out my life in jail, ...

But nothing is quick! You usually stay in prison for years waiting for the execution! :sad:

tangerine_dream
09-26-2011, 08:52 PM
For the record, there was another man who was put to death the same day as Troy Davis: Lawrence Brewer, one of those scumbags who dragged James Byrd Jr. to his death (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-21/justice/justice_texas-dragging-death-execution_1_lawrence-russell-brewer-john-william-king-shawn-berry?_s=PM:JUSTICE) over a decade ago. Was the death penalty wrong for this guy?

That's a pretty poor "ultimate point", I have to say. The two systems aren't comparable. If you imprison a person for life and he turns out to be innocent, he just gets released. It's fairly hard to release a guy who turns out to be innocent if he's already been executed.
But Norway law does not believe in life sentences, as quoted in that link I posted. Many think it's too harsh. How is a life sentence considered too harsh for the likes of Breivik, who clearly shouldn't be walking about free in society?

Contrary to popular belief though, USA isn't always right.
I never said it was. The European media love to act all smug and superior about their no-death-penalty stance compared to 'barbaric' USA but as I said before, they can pretend to be outraged over a supposedly wrongful death like Davis but then along comes a Breivik and suddenly they change their tune. Hence, my comment, "it works both ways".

In any case I shouldn't have compared a cut-and-dry case like Breivik to the Troy Davis case.

McVeigh didn't die in the electric chair.
It was a figure of speech.

Har-Tru
09-26-2011, 09:38 PM
For the record, there was another man who was put to death the same day as Troy Davis: Lawrence Brewer, one of those scumbags who dragged James Byrd Jr. to his death (http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-21/justice/justice_texas-dragging-death-execution_1_lawrence-russell-brewer-john-william-king-shawn-berry?_s=PM:JUSTICE) over a decade ago. Was the death penalty wrong for this guy?

Yes.

But Norway law does not believe in life sentences, as quoted in that link I posted. Many think it's too harsh. How is a life sentence considered too harsh for the likes of Breivik, who clearly shouldn't be walking about free in society?

It isn't.

I never said it was. The European media love to act all smug and superior about their no-death-penalty stance compared to 'barbaric' USA but as I said before, they can pretend to be outraged over a supposedly wrongful death like Davis but then along comes a Breivik and suddenly they change their tune. Hence, my comment, "it works both ways".

In any case I shouldn't have compared a cut-and-dry case like Breivik to the Troy Davis case.

So some Norwegians reacted to the cruellest murder case in the history of modern Europe by positioning themselves in favour of death penalty. 3/4 of them are still against it. Seems to me like a pretty weak argument as to "changing their tune".

Sunset of Age
09-26-2011, 10:48 PM
So some Norwegians reacted to the cruellest murder case in the history of modern Europe by positioning themselves in favour of death penalty. 3/4 of them are still against it. Seems to me like a pretty weak argument as to "changing their tune".

Exactly.
As I've heard from some Norwegian friends, they are considering to make a life-long sentence possible now. Which in this particular case might well be a proper idea.

Orka_n
09-26-2011, 11:05 PM
Exactly.
As I've heard from some Norwegian friends, they are considering to make a life-long sentence possible now. Which in this particular case might well be a proper idea.I agree.

Tangy: I don't think I have to respond since Har-Tru already did that pretty well, but I never said I want Breivik to roam free again. I do think life-long sentences should exist. Not capital punishment though.

2003
09-27-2011, 11:46 AM
Totally torn on the issue.

I think in some ways its a pitty that the criminal resorted to homicide to solve a problem or conflict, and were showing them at ultimately, were no better by resorting to the same to deal with them. In some ways its an eye for an eye, in others its showing were no superior.

On the other hand, why on earth should they get to live, when someone who was totally innocent doesnt get to?

Of course, you have to prove that dieing actually is a tougher punishment than life in prison. In many ways its not. Its better to burn out, then to fade away? Maybe. Quite frankly I think they enjoy the attention, that day they die all the eyes of the world are on them, everyones talking about their last meal etc. A dignified end in many ways. Vs slowing becoming insignificant and old news rotting away in a cell, where no one cares anymore, and a new killer takes your place in the headlines for a while. A lot of these sick serial killers do it for attention. Killing them gives them even more attention/cause for debate. They are failures who just want their 15 minutes, something theyd never get in their pathetic normal lives.

Then again, id support it if it did act as a deterant. But theres no proof it does. In fact the states that have it I think have the highest murder rates.

Bear in mind, in a time when the death penalty might have worked, we didnt have the potent drugs we have nowadays which many people are on. People in the past who may have thought hard about the punishment might not care anymore.

A tough one. Also, what if the family of the victim dont want the person executed? Do you go against their wishes to prove a point, or anything for them, for justice?

Also, if you have the death penalty, anyone who killed who didnt get it, their lawyers will have a field day trying to get their prison sentances reduced. Example, "well it cant be so obvious they did it otherwise they would be on death row, this case deserves to be reopened" etc.

Navratil
09-27-2011, 02:57 PM
Eye for an eye is somehow a Wild-West-philosophy. The fault of someone doesn't give us the right to make the same fault.

And the other problem is: What is a reasonable doubt? When is someone proven guitly? There are not many cases without any doubts...

allpro
09-27-2011, 11:53 PM
pro-death :toothy::armed::rocker::fiery:

Pirata.
09-28-2011, 12:19 AM
Instead they get three meals a day, shelter and the use of internet and cable television.

Not every prison offers these luxuries.

Black Adam
09-28-2011, 02:10 AM
Eye for an eye is from the bible, from God's mouth to our ears.

If definitely guilty then yes, sorry doesn't cut it. Definitely guilty is the tricky part.

I think some crimes like hostage taking should be upgraded to being eligible for the Death penalty.

Snoo Foo
09-28-2011, 03:38 AM
And soon the whole world is blind.

allpro
09-28-2011, 03:44 AM
I think some crimes like hostage taking should be upgraded to being eligible for the Death penalty.

murderers, terrorists, hijackers, hostage takers, suicide bombers, kidnappers, pirates -- all are worthy of death. first judged by man in the flesh, then in the spiritual realm hereafter.

nadejda
09-28-2011, 03:08 PM
I'd say No to death penalty.We have no right to take someones' life.
Murder can not justify a state's murder.
However I don't get the max 20 years sentence. In my country we have a life sntence with NO right for replacement, which means no matter how well you behave in jail you will be there untiill you die. I am fine with this. Also support making the criminals work for their meals, no luxury, no internet, no right to publish books ect. Just plain work everyday until you die.

abraxas21
09-28-2011, 03:52 PM
i see a strong correlation between being a rafatard and a death penalty apologist here

can't say i'm surprised though

Shirogane
09-28-2011, 04:00 PM
probably doesn't help to evolve man much to kill upon a kill... although, where is this bad energy supposed to then go...? are we meant to simply absorb it...?And carry it. Always. I would keep it with mine. :cool:

... sorry, just warming up for the new season of Dexter. :o Good question though.

MaxPower
09-28-2011, 04:20 PM
Doesn't eye for an eye sort of imply that if you kill someone horribly you should also be killed horribly? I don't see it working like that. In the US in particular they have worked so hard to refine the death penalty to be as "humane" (yes that's the word) as possible. In the middle east they have had a more literal eye for an eye system with some famous cases like the man who threw acid into a womans face making her blind and was sentenced to have the woman drip acid into his eyes making him blind (she later forgave him though). That's eye for an eye and revenge taken literally.

Life sentence and death penalty in modern times in the West has had more to do with "this guy is a danger to society, how should we take care of the problem" than actual revenge. Let's not forget that most really violent criminals like killers often are inclined to kill again. Even if you lock them up they often kill other inmates or injure and in rare cases kill guards/personnel. Easy to forget that in this debate

allpro
09-28-2011, 11:21 PM
i see a strong correlation between being a rafatard and a death penalty apologist here

can't say i'm surprised though

you have a small mind.

2003
03-01-2013, 02:47 AM
Only when the justice system has proven w/o reasonable doubt.

Nope.

All convictions are treated pretty much equally.

If there is reasonable doubt the person should not be even found guilty.

People say only when it's an open and shut case, but what is the definition of open and shut?

Even confessions have been shown to be coerced or made up. Even witnesses have been shown to be wrong.

2003
03-01-2013, 03:17 AM
Quite frankly the death penalty is just another 15 mins of fame for the killers.

Another cover at time magazine, on the day of execution everyones talking about them, what they gonna have for last meal, and it always bring up this debate too. The family have to relive the crime over again 10 years late for this punishment.

So even more events to detract attention away from where it really should be, on the VICTIM. It should be the victims we remember, not the criminals. But sadly those stories don't sell papers.

Just lock them up and forget (within reason) about them. Don't give them the attention they crave.

Say Hey Kid
03-01-2013, 03:40 AM
The problem with the death penalty is it is way more expensive than keeping someone behind bars for 60 years. In addition, if you want to live a non police state it almost has to be very expensive because killing someone is very serious.

In a perfect society where the government was run by angels, and everyone convicted truly was guilty of a henious crime they were accused of, then I'm all for the death penalty. However, if one innocent victim gets executed then the whole system has failed.

It is a waste of taxpayer money.

Mr. Oracle
03-01-2013, 03:54 AM
The problem with the death penalty is it is way more expensive than keeping someone behind bars for 60 years. In addition, if you want to live a non police state it almost has to be very expensive because killing someone is very serious.

In a perfect society where the government was run by angels, and everyone convicted truly was guilty of a henious crime they were accused of, then I'm all for the death penalty. However, if one innocent victim gets executed then the whole system has failed.

It is a waste of taxpayer money.

Not against it per se but my biggest concern with capital punishment, especially in the USA, is the number of black man who are on death row for crimes they didn't commit.


I can't see how CP is more expensive though. Link to data?

Topspindoctor
03-01-2013, 06:12 AM
How about abolish all DP but people who would normally get it (murderers, rapists etc) get worked for 16 hours a day, hard physical labor and get fed minimal amount. That way they will still die (but not executed) in 2-3 years and government still gets some use out of them, not to mention tax payers get more of a break.

Har-Tru
03-01-2013, 02:22 PM
The problem with the death penalty is it is way more expensive than keeping someone behind bars for 60 years. In addition, if you want to live a non police state it almost has to be very expensive because killing someone is very serious.

In a perfect society where the government was run by angels, and everyone convicted truly was guilty of a henious crime they were accused of, then I'm all for the death penalty. However, if one innocent victim gets executed then the whole system has failed.

It is a waste of taxpayer money.

Airplane is a legendary movie.

tripwires
03-01-2013, 07:56 PM
How about abolish all DP but people who would normally get it (murderers, rapists etc) get worked for 16 hours a day, hard physical labor and get fed minimal amount. That way they will still die (but not executed) in 2-3 years and government still gets some use out of them, not to mention tax payers get more of a break.

You do know that cruel and unusual punishment is prohibited in all civilised countries and international law explicitly prohibits torture, right?

Punky
03-04-2013, 05:36 AM
I think about that question for years, I think rapists should get a death penalty bc it's worse then a murder in my eyes, if u murder someone it's over but if u **** someone u take his soul and violate their body, I know someone who has been r-p by a men when he was young and always said that death would have been so much better...

I think every case is different and yes some ppl should die, esp ppl who does awful things to babies, kids, elders or helplessness

MachimoI
03-04-2013, 06:30 AM
I used to support the death penalty, but as I get older, it's just much easier to see that apart from the primeval instincts that make us revengeful and leave us willing to retribute after someone has done us wrong, there's nothing that justifies it. Ergo, the death penalty is irrational.

The cost of a thorough judiciary process and all the expenses connected with it are significantly higher than the potential gain of killing the perpetrator.

If the costs of the judiciary process are decreased to a minimum, the proportion of innocent people executed rises to ridiculous levels. There's plenty of examples of that in countries like China or Russia. Just to give you an example - 6 people were executed for the crimes of a single mass murderer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo.

It makes much more sense to keep mass murderers etc. imprisoned until they die and to release all first-time offenders after a limited amount of time (including murderers), because the reoffending rate for murderers is very low.

heya
03-04-2013, 06:43 AM
Cold killers should be forced to watch executions and reality shows of Kardashian & Paris Hilton.

Life's already short for law-abiders
(in a world where families, friends, teachers, mental/drug rehab institutions,
police & law makers can't care less about people who never wanted extremely painful lives).
The media is full of greedy people who let copycat crimes occur by criminal infamy coverage.
Victims' families want to enjoy the killers' deaths; they don't care if these nothing-losers had fame.
No one cares about trial cost/the public's money unless jackasses bragged about sleeping with children because
they loved religion
or claimed to be clueless of killing.

It's too late to prevent the murders.
I can't understand why people have forced relationships with many shady idiots
just to hear how great their lives/beliefs are, involving psychos, violent friendships & fake spouses.
Most victims get involved with disturbed people. Others trust security guards in public so they are executed in unsafe places.

MachimoI
03-04-2013, 10:41 AM
Cold killers should be forced to watch executions and reality shows of Kardashian & Paris Hilton.

Life's already short for law-abiders
(in a world where families, friends, teachers, mental/drug rehab institutions,
police & law makers can't care less about people who never wanted extremely painful lives).
The media is full of greedy people who let copycat crimes occur by criminal infamy coverage.
Victims' families want to enjoy the killers' deaths; they don't care if these nothing-losers had fame.
No one cares about trial cost/the public's money unless jackasses bragged about sleeping with children because
they loved religion
or claimed to be clueless of killing.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/502/017/2bf.gif

Har-Tru
03-04-2013, 05:18 PM
As faulty as the system is in countries like the USA, it's still several times better than the barbaric medieval ways of some Muslim countries.

SAUDI ARABIA: SEVEN MEN TO BE EXECUTED

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE23/008/2013/en/60ee1b22-2412-47f6-8e71-b9d7b02e91cd/mde230082013en.html

Punky
03-04-2013, 05:43 PM
in israel we have death penalty and it was used just once, when the Mossad kidnapped Eichmann, put him on trial and he was convicted.

MachimoI
03-04-2013, 06:17 PM
in israel we have death penalty and it was used just once, when the Mossad kidnapped Eichmann, put him on trial and he was convicted.
You're obviously not counting the 100+ lynches/executions/assassinations carried out by Mossad without any sort of trial.

Punky
03-04-2013, 06:55 PM
You're obviously not counting the 100+ lynches/executions/assassinations carried out by Mossad without any sort of trial.

just 100? i think it alot more then that or 100 is just the number the public know.

cant say i feel sorry for the death of Mabhouh, Imad Mughniyah atc atc.

ProdigyEng
03-04-2013, 06:58 PM
Death Penalty is stupid. Easy way out for killers, who'd probably commit suicide if they could, and take cowardly way out. I say lock them up in a dark, damp, secluded room and let them rot mentally as they will eventually think about what they have done

Mr. Oracle
03-04-2013, 11:05 PM
Cold killers should be forced to watch executions and reality shows of Kardashian & Paris Hilton.

Life's already short for law-abiders
(in a world where families, friends, teachers, mental/drug rehab institutions,
police & law makers can't care less about people who never wanted extremely painful lives).
The media is full of greedy people who let copycat crimes occur by criminal infamy coverage.
Victims' families want to enjoy the killers' deaths; they don't care if these nothing-losers had fame.
No one cares about trial cost/the public's money unless jackasses bragged about sleeping with children because
they loved religion
or claimed to be clueless of killing.

It's too late to prevent the murders.
I can't understand why people have forced relationships with many shady idiots
just to hear how great their lives/beliefs are, involving psychos, violent friendships & fake spouses.
Most victims get involved with disturbed people. Others trust security guards in public so they are executed in unsafe places.

heya, i always enjoy your funny posts but when u get high before posting it makes understanding difficult :lol:...take a few days and organize your thoughts !:yeah:

Mr. Oracle
03-04-2013, 11:07 PM
I used to support the death penalty, but as I get older, it's just much easier to see that apart from the primeval instincts that make us revengeful and leave us willing to retribute after someone has done us wrong, there's nothing that justifies it. Ergo, the death penalty is irrational.
.

I believe most societies use CP in order to deter future crimes as opposed to revenge.

MachimoI
03-05-2013, 12:18 AM
I believe most societies use CP in order to deter future crimes as opposed to revenge.
Except it doesn't work as a deterrent. In fact, most data suggests that CP-retaining societies are more violent than the one's not using CP.

MachimoI
03-05-2013, 12:23 AM
just 100? i think it alot more then that or 100 is just the number the public know.

cant say i feel sorry for the death of Mabhouh, Imad Mughniyah atc atc.
I can only count the confirmed killings, can I?

In any case, it's one of the many things that makes Israel an unloved regime, to say the least. And not only among Islamic fundamentalists, Arab nationalists or neo-Nazis. But that's a different story.

Fujee
03-05-2013, 02:27 AM
100% against it. No human has the right to end another life.

rocketassist
03-05-2013, 03:56 AM
A read of John Grisham's novel The Confession should be enough to convince any doubters of how abhorrent the death penalty is.

Punky
03-05-2013, 04:11 AM
I can only count the confirmed killings, can I?

In any case, it's one of the many things that makes Israel an unloved regime, to say the least. And not only among Islamic fundamentalists, Arab nationalists or neo-Nazis. But that's a different story.

I don't have a problem with that, not at all.


Hoo and I didn't know that b4 that we were a loved country ;), Israel was never and will never be a popular country.

We don't need to please any country in the world so she will love or accept us.

gusavo
03-05-2013, 04:31 AM
The cost of a thorough judiciary process and all the expenses connected with it are significantly higher than the potential gain of killing the perpetrator.

If the costs of the judiciary process are decreased to a minimum, the proportion of innocent people executed rises to ridiculous levels. There's plenty of examples of that in countries like China or Russia. Just to give you an example - 6 people were executed for the crimes of a single mass murderer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Chikatilo.

that has nothing to do with death penalty theory. youre talking about specific current systems that are employed and their potential faults. of course innocent people dying isnt positive

MachimoI
03-05-2013, 11:15 AM
We don't need to please any country in the world so she will love or accept us.
Except the US.

MachimoI
03-05-2013, 11:17 AM
that has nothing to do with death penalty theory. youre talking about specific current systems that are employed and their potential faults. of course innocent people dying isnt positive
What the hell is a death penalty theory and what is your point?

sexybeast
03-05-2013, 11:51 AM
The evidence must be BULLETPROOF, if there is no doubt that the criminal is responsible for some horrible crime, I think the victims deserve their vengeance and also the criminal shouldnt be allowed a comfortable life in jail for the rest of his life. Say, someone like Breivik, that man should be killed.

2003
03-08-2013, 02:38 AM
What if for some reason or another, devout religious or personal beliefs, the left over family of the victim don't want the death sentence passed. Then what do you do?

I think it's shaky to assume that everyone who has a family member murdered would want the perp executed.

I have never been in that position, but I am against the DP. I can't say if someone was convicted of killing my family member I would want them to be executed, but then again my opinion isn't valid if I havent been in that situation.

2003
03-08-2013, 02:45 AM
I think rapists should get a death penalty bc it's worse then a murder in my eyes, if u murder someone it's over but if u **** someone u take his soul and violate their body, I know someone who has been r-p by a men when he was young and always said that death would have been so much better...

The problem is that **** is hard to prove. The burdon of proof is too high.

Also, there is a scenario whereby two people have consensual sex, and then afterward the woman claims ****. It is basically impossible for the male to prove his innocence. His DNA is there. You can cast doubt based upon circumstances and behaviour, but it basically becomes a case of he said she said, and if you get an all female jury or something, the odds are weighed far to far in favour against the defendant. His total presumption of innocence is compromised.

Basically, the only way a man can ever defend himself against a **** charge is if he says he never had sex with her, and the DNA if collected is from someone else, therefore exonerating him. But in essence, it is virtually impossible to prove 100% you didn't commit a ****. DNA or a rock solid alibi are the only fullproof ways, and having the death sentence on the books is more motivation for a woman to lie about a **** if she really want's the guy dead.

Punky
03-08-2013, 07:37 AM
The problem is that **** is hard to prove. The burdon of proof is too high.

Also, there is a scenario whereby two people have consensual sex, and then afterward the woman claims ****. It is basically impossible for the male to prove his innocence. His DNA is there. You can cast doubt based upon circumstances and behaviour, but it basically becomes a case of he said she said, and if you get an all female jury or something, the odds are weighed far to far in favour against the defendant. His total presumption of innocence is compromised.

Basically, the only way a man can ever defend himself against a **** charge is if he says he never had sex with her, and the DNA if collected is from someone else, therefore exonerating him. But in essence, it is virtually impossible to prove 100% you didn't commit a ****. DNA or a rock solid alibi are the only fullproof ways, and having the death sentence on the books is more motivation for a woman to lie about a **** if she really want's the guy dead.

thats true but most cases The victim is Badly bruised in his Sexual organs and all over his body or The balance of power is Not equal, like, say pedophiles or other sick ppl.

JamieBlake
03-10-2013, 05:14 PM
No human has the right to take another human being's life. I think it should be limited to extreme cases, not just a guy who killed another one.

Andresito
03-11-2013, 07:06 PM
No.

In my country it would not work because the justice system is not perfect.

My question is, between A or B what would you choose?

A) an innocent person killed.
B) the most horrible criminal free.

For me, it's B.

On the other hand, I do understand that some criminal just can't be realeased, for example serial killers, rapist, or child molesters.

Wing Man Frank
03-12-2013, 12:44 AM
The death penalty is barbaric and doesn't work.

/topic

VamosRafaNadal
03-12-2013, 12:57 AM
I am against the death penalty at 95%. I think that it has to be an exceptional measure to apply only with special cases of horrible criminals that have admit that they are guilty or when there are a lot of clear evidences that they are the guilties.

The thing we have to do is to make stronger and restrictive laws to punish criminals even harder than we do it now.

Wing Man Frank
03-12-2013, 01:01 AM
The thing we have to do is to make stronger and restrictive laws to punish criminals even harder than we do it now.

Explain?

rocketassist
03-12-2013, 02:05 AM
The death penalty is barbaric and doesn't work.

/topic

we're agreeing a lot tonight, it's weird

Navratil
03-14-2013, 06:14 PM
Shocking to see that a third of all people voted for death penalty :(

I thought the middle age was over..

Dr.Slice
03-14-2013, 08:58 PM
Shocking to see that a third of all people voted for death penalty :(

I thought the middle age was over..

I am far more dissapointed seeing so many stupid liberal do-gooders on this site. As far as I am concerned, if the criminal has committed a murder or is a child molester, then a trip to the executioner is more than deserved. I would also add drug-dealers to this list. These people are scum, why waste taxpayers money on them when all they deserve is a slow death?

But of course I know, a good liberal would rather try to rehabilitate murderers and let them murder more innocent people than actually put an end to crimes.

MachimoI
03-15-2013, 01:03 AM
I am far more dissapointed seeing so many stupid liberal do-gooders on this site. As far as I am concerned, if the criminal has committed a murder or is a child molester, then a trip to the executioner is more than deserved. I would also add drug-dealers to this list. These people are scum, why waste taxpayers money on them when all they deserve is a slow death?

But of course I know, a good liberal would rather try to rehabilitate murderers and let them murder more innocent people than actually put an end to crimes.
There is no logic to your post.

As far as the economy (=the wellbeing of the society in general) is concerned, locking up a person has a negative impact (the number of man-hours lost is huge), while killing a person costs even more to the society, because of the involved costs of the trial coupled with the lost man-hours, which would be otherwise spent working and adding value to the economy.

Look up the statistics for murderers, only a small fraction of them re-offend. It makes no sense to kill them or keep them imprisoned, unless they do re-offend. Furthermore, advances in neuroscience and genetics will let us trace the psychos much more effectively. The majority of serial killers, mass murderers etc. are biologically predisposed to commit such crimes with others having suffered severe psychological traumas. It is quite easy to set these people apart from decent people, who've committed crimes of passion (the distinct majority of murders) and who could and should become productive members of the society as soon as possible. Forced labour should be the preferred punishment for these people.

The same applies to child molesters, no reason to kill them, it is irrational. Forced labour coupled with chemical or physical castration should be preferred.

PorkBarrel
03-15-2013, 01:06 PM
Against. It isn't foolproof, neither is it a deterrent.

Mimi
04-03-2013, 08:43 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ohio-man-sexually-assaulted-baby-seeks-mercy-18859981

after reading this article, I guess may be death penalty is necessary for some people. Shutting them into prison will not make them change. Just horrible, just horrible .......... :sad:

niff
04-03-2013, 01:40 PM
These people are scum, why waste taxpayers money on them when all they deserve is a slow death?
http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost

Har-Tru
04-03-2013, 02:08 PM
Death penalty? How about sentencing someone to be paralysed from the waist down?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22010122

masterclass
04-06-2013, 07:18 PM
People are not born serial killers, murderers, rapists, etc. unless there is some physical impairment of the brain from birth.

Family or lack thereof, society, environment, etc. has usually helped to shape their lives. There is a failure or serious of failures, maybe even abuse at some point, or perhaps the brain of someone has been impaired, but it's usually pathological in some way, and underlying causes can and have eventually been found in these people. Looking at it this way, we should seriously question ourselves as a society for failing to recognize potentially harmful people and helping them prior to them committing serious crimes, instead of condemning them to death after the fact.

The best we can do after the crime is to remove them from harming others and make an attempt to rehabilitate. It may not always work, but it is the civilized thing to do.

A society that permits executions is knowingly committing "legalized" homicide. War or military conflict is sanctioned killing by the state. Yet many of these people are called heroic and it is justified in the name of patriotism, religion, or political right and might.

Instead of countries having military drafts to train people how to kill, they should first be having qualified psychological evaluations for every person at least yearly. We might not be able to identify everyone with a potential of violence from either static or dynamic risk factors and help improve or overcome those, but I bet we would improve on the current situation.

Respectfully,
masterclass

Mr. Oracle
04-07-2013, 12:10 AM
People are not born serial killers, murderers, rapists, etc. unless there is some physical impairment of the brain from birth.

Family or lack thereof, society, environment, etc. has usually helped to shape their lives. There is a failure or serious of failures, maybe even abuse at some point, or perhaps the brain of someone has been impaired, but it's usually pathological in some way, and underlying causes can and have eventually been found in these people. Looking at it this way, we should seriously question ourselves as a society for failing to recognize potentially harmful people and helping them prior to them committing serious crimes, instead of condemning them to death after the fact.

The best we can do after the crime is to remove them from harming others and make an attempt to rehabilitate. It may not always work, but it is the civilized thing to do.

A society that permits executions is knowingly committing "legalized" homicide. War or military conflict is sanctioned killing by the state. Yet many of these people are called heroic and it is justified in the name of patriotism, religion, or political right and might.

Instead of countries having military drafts to train people how to kill, they should first be having qualified psychological evaluations for every person at least yearly. We might not be able to identify everyone with a potential of violence from either static or dynamic risk factors and help improve or overcome those, but I bet we would improve on the current situation.


Respectfully,
masterclass


I like your idea of more psych evaluations. If we could catch problems early on, perhaps there would be hope for recovery. No doubt pathology is responsible for a lot of deviant behaviour, but there are also studies which reveal that even seemingly "good", healthy and law-abiding people have a capacity for deviance (what some call evil) under certain social circumstances and influences. Historically, the main goal of capital punishment has been to serve as a deterrent and warning for these types, as opposed to revenge on the criminal. Essentially, I'm convinced that good people can be influenced to be bad in short order. You have some really great ideas there but I have no easy answers.

Har-Tru
04-07-2013, 12:19 AM
Yes, the sooner we get rid of the idea of free will the better we'll focus our discussion on this and other subjects.

Mr. Oracle
04-07-2013, 04:20 AM
Yes, the sooner we get rid of the idea of free will the better we'll focus our discussion on this and other subjects.

I may get a little obtuse by the time the weekend rolls around, after a hard week, but some elaboration would have been helpful. Hard to tell if you're being cynical or not.

ballbasher101
04-07-2013, 06:16 AM
It is barbaric. It does not deter serious crimes. It does not save money, it actually costs more to execute people. Innocent people have had their heads chopped off. There are no second chances. I don't see the point of having it. I'm glad the UK does not have it anymore. I hope all countries abolish it.

Topspindoctor
04-07-2013, 06:21 AM
It is barbaric. It does not deter serious crimes. It does not save money, it actually costs more to execute people. Innocent people have had their heads chopped off. There are no second chances. I don't see the point of having it. I'm glad the UK does not have it anymore. I hope all countries abolish it.

Some people do not deserve second chances. Barbaric? DP is too humane actually. Some people deserve to be tortured for weeks for things they've done. It's disgusting how liberal this world has become. I know if someone laid a finger on my family, I'd cut off their every limb with garden cutters. And I wouldn't care if I got executed for it either.

ballbasher101
04-07-2013, 06:41 AM
Some people do not deserve second chances. Barbaric? DP is too humane actually. Some people deserve to be tortured for weeks for things they've done. It's disgusting how liberal this world has become. I know if someone laid a finger on my family, I'd cut off their every limb with garden cutters. And I wouldn't care if I got executed for it either.


I dare not cross you Sir. I assume you are a guy, if not I'm definitely ashamed :o. When this topic is taught there is a focus on both the advantages and disadvantages. The death penalty has more disadvantages than advantages. The killing of innocent people is particularly shocking. Dying for nothing. The judicial system is far from perfect. Torture is just wrong. I take it you are not a fan of the universal declaration of human rights.

heya
04-07-2013, 06:49 AM
Why would you get executed for saving your family from criminals? Only dummy judges & death penalty haters feel sorry for shameless killers, thugs and psycho cowards.

If death isn't a deterrent, we'd have a billion more prisoners just enjoying visits from their happy families.

What about people who were forced to do hard labor by Vietnam communists?
They were victims, but no one remembers them because they died young and the communists got away with cruelty.

Topspindoctor
04-07-2013, 06:53 AM
I take it you are not a fan of the universal declaration of human rights.

You are incorrect here. I am all for human rights. However, some actions (such as pedophilia, murder etc) should automatically strip you of these rights. Simple enough? If you commit atrocious acts, then you should no longer be protected by the rights that normal people have, since you are behaving in an inhuman manner and as such no longer human. In which case any sort of punishment is perfectly justifiable. You dont feel sorry when you crush a cockroach, do you?

I feel today, too many criminals hide behind "human rights" these days in order to avoid punishment, despite committing crimes no normal human would commit. If we started stripping them of these rights for certain crimes, the situation would change. Your average child molester would think long and hard before abusing kids if he knew he faced a very real possibility of getting painfully executed instead of liberals patting him on the back, giving him counseling and releasing him back into society.

ballbasher101
04-07-2013, 07:05 AM
Why would you get executed for saving your family from criminals? Only dummy judges & death penalty haters feel sorry for shameless killers, thugs and psycho cowards.

If death isn't a deterrent, we'd have a billion more prisoners just enjoying visits from their happy families.

What about people who were forced to do hard labor by Vietnam communists?
They were victims, but no one remembers them because they died young and the communists got away with cruelty.


Statistically speaking it matters not whether a country has the death penalty or not. Serious and violent crimes always happen either way. As a deterrent the death penalty does not reduce serious crimes. I found forensic psychology a little depressing. Informative yes but depressing. The world is a complicated place. When it comes to crime there are too many factors and variables involved. I used to have a purely black and white view of crime and punishment but there is a whole lot of grey out there.

Mr. Oracle
04-07-2013, 07:21 AM
It is barbaric. It does not deter serious crimes. It does not save money, it actually costs more to execute people. Innocent people have had their heads chopped off. There are no second chances. I don't see the point of having it. I'm glad the UK does not have it anymore. I hope all countries abolish it.

Personally I'd be scared shitless if I saw someone lose their pumpkin by the old guillotine in the town square.

Har-Tru
04-07-2013, 09:51 AM
I may get a little obtuse by the time the weekend rolls around, after a hard week, but some elaboration would have been helpful. Hard to tell if you're being cynical or not.

I am very serious.

masterclass made good points, but I ask, what is the difference between a psychopath with a brain injury that makes him incapable for empathy and one that has been abused as a child, or one that simply has the wrong genes and has been born in the wrong family or part of town?

We cannot account for what we do, nobody can. We do not choose anything in the sense that we think we do. Therefore, hate is irrational, and executing people out of retaliation makes no sense.

Chair Umpire
04-11-2013, 01:16 PM
Death penalty? How about sentencing someone to be paralysed from the waist down?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22010122

At least they're not punishing a r4ped woman this time.

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7098480.stm)

superslam77
04-11-2013, 02:39 PM
how do you feel sorry for people that have commited acts much worse than a possible punishment? i mean death sentence is for proven serial killers.

twoflower
04-11-2013, 03:18 PM
how do you feel sorry for people that have commited acts much worse than a possible punishment? i mean death sentence is for proven serial killers.

The trouble is the people have not always committed the crime they have been accused of, and have been found to been victims of a miscarriage of justice after being sentenced to death.

superslam77
04-11-2013, 04:36 PM
The trouble is the people have not always committed the crime they have been accused of, and have been found to been victims of a miscarriage of justice after being sentenced to death.

how many could be wrongly accused? 1% of all crimes? even that would be too much imo. but we will help your cause and say it's 10% that is wrongly accused...each time that is one innocent person that would lose his life BUT if you let serial killers free THEY WILL kill again in 60-90% of the cases :wavey: and they will kill MORE innocent people than if there was a death sentence

so yeah do the math :eek:

twoflower
04-11-2013, 04:58 PM
how many could be wrongly accused? 1% of all crimes? even that would be too much imo. but we will help your cause and say it's 10% that is wrongly accused...each time that is one innocent person that would lose his life BUT if you let serial killers free THEY WILL kill again in 60-90% of the cases :wavey: and they will kill MORE innocent people than if there was a death sentence

so yeah do the math :eek:


[In the US]
Number of excecutions since 1976: 1327
Number of exonerations since 1976: 142

I make that at least 9.67% of people wrongly accused. No help is required for my cause just facts.

Anyway, no one is suggesting releasing serial killers onto the streets, prison is an option.

Mimi
04-12-2013, 08:30 AM
may be just for me, being shut in a prison for life is actually a more worst punishment than a quick death

Mr. Oracle
04-13-2013, 04:03 AM
may be just for me, being shut in a prison for life is actually a more worst punishment than a quick death

Don't let the sugar-sweet persona of mimi fool anyone. She is ruthless :haha:

Punky
04-13-2013, 04:12 AM
Don't let the sugar-sweet persona of mimi fool anyone. She is ruthless :haha:

LoL Mimi?

Right ;)

Mimi
04-17-2013, 10:59 AM
Don't let the sugar-sweet persona of mimi fool anyone. She is ruthless :haha:

my sympathy lies with the victims and not the murderers. Ruthless are those heartless murderers. :shrug: I just can't stand staying in prison for life, I prefer to die, just my preference, not necessarily applied to others :shrug:

superslam77
04-17-2013, 02:21 PM
my sympathy lies with the victims and not the murderers. Ruthless are those heartless murderers. :shrug: I just can't stand staying in prison for life, I prefer to die, just my preference, not necessarily applied to others :shrug:

mimi is goat in my heart :cool:

Punky
04-17-2013, 02:38 PM
yes bc of this and lots of ppl like him

face of pure evil

http://www.nrg.co.il/images/archive/300x225/1/036/800.jpg

Wing Man Frank
04-17-2013, 03:57 PM
There is no sensible or logical argument for the death penalty.

/thread

Topspindoctor
04-17-2013, 04:58 PM
There is no sensible or logical argument for the death penalty.

/thread

Except that there is. Saying /thread does not really change that.

star
04-17-2013, 05:12 PM
mimi is goat in my heart :cool:

Mimi is a special person. She's one of the gifts of this board.

On your point about fewer innocent people being put to death than mass murderers would kill if they were released: in my opinion that is not a valid analysis.

First, not having a death penalty does not mean the mass murderers would be released to kill again. Secondly, very few people on death row are mass murderers.

I am against the state killing people. To me the state must set an example to its people. If killing is beyond the pale, the state also must respect that ban. Then there is also the chance that there's is error. This is not some remote chance. Many people have been released from prison because they were wrongly convicted, most have been released many years after their convictions. When someone is put to death, there is no chance to correct a wrong conviction. Also I object to the suffering inflicted on the families of those executed,. No one ever thinks about them. They have done no wrong, yet I cannot imagine how horrible it must be to have your son or father executed,

Wing Man Frank
04-17-2013, 05:19 PM
Except that there is. Saying /thread does not really change that.

Show me a single argument that backs up the death penalty argument and makes sense.

Preferably an argument that isn't an opinion, but is one based on fact.

Best of luck, you'll need it.

Gris
04-17-2013, 06:00 PM
Death penalty is necessary and that's all.

I cannot see the reason why we should keep those serial murderers alive.

Please enlighten me like I am three years old or something.

Wing Man Frank
04-17-2013, 06:05 PM
This thread is hilarious.

How can anyone advocate a system in which innocent people are killed when the jury gets a decision wrong?

Are you actually mental?

Gris
04-17-2013, 06:13 PM
This thread is hilarious.

How can anyone advocate a system in which innocent people are killed while the criminal gets away without being executed?

Are you actually mental?

Corrected for you.

Wing Man Frank
04-17-2013, 06:16 PM
Corrected for you.

Try answering my question.

Gris
04-17-2013, 06:19 PM
Try answering my question.

How many cases are misjudged?

One percent or even less?

And try answering my question:How can criminals get away from being executed when innocent ones get murdered?

Wing Man Frank
04-17-2013, 06:22 PM
How many cases are misjudged?

One percent or even less?

And try answering my question:How can criminals get away from being executed when innocent ones get murdered?

Who gives a fuck about an innocent man being put to death for something he didn't do? Is that what you are saying?

Are you a mongoloid who needs to use the 'eye for an eye' bullshit to justify the death penalty? Is that the best argument you can produce?

TigerTim
04-17-2013, 06:23 PM
no.

Gris
04-17-2013, 06:31 PM
Who gives a fuck about an innocent man being put to death for something he didn't do? Is that what you are saying?

Deeply sorry for those of course but it is the legal system to blame not the death penalty.

In other words,an innocent man may be put into jail for something he didn't do in countries without the death penalty.Are you happy with that?

Are you a mongoloid who needs to use the 'eye for an eye' bullshit to justify the death penalty? Is that the best argument you can produce?

So do you have a better idea for those murderers?

Explain it to me like I am three years old please.

Wing Man Frank
04-17-2013, 06:36 PM
Explain it to me like I am three years old please.

I don't think you are 'like' a three year old, I am worried you are indeed three.

You still haven't provided a reason as to why the death penalty should exist.

Please offer one and stop wasting my time reading your drivel.

Wing Man Frank
04-17-2013, 06:39 PM
In other words,an innocent man may be put into jail for something he didn't do in countries without the death penalty.Are you happy with that?

Is that the best argument you could put together? :lol:

Let me help you, the innocent man in jail can appeal in order to try and win his freedom. The dead man can't.

Slight difference don't you think?

Gris
04-17-2013, 06:45 PM
Is that the best argument you could put together? :lol:

Let me help you, the innocent man in jail can appeal in order to try and win his freedom. The dead man can't.

Slight difference don't you think?


So go and blame your legal system now as I have suggested.

Is the existence of death penalty the one which caused the misjudgement?:wavey:

Gris
04-17-2013, 06:48 PM
I don't think you are 'like' a three year old, I am worried you are indeed three.

You still haven't provided a reason as to why the death penalty should exist.

Please offer one and stop wasting my time reading your drivel.

Because death penalty is the best way of punishment for murderers.

Give me a reason why Anders Breivik should still be alive now.

Wing Man Frank
04-17-2013, 06:48 PM
So go and blame your legal system now as I have suggested.

Is the existence of death penalty the one which caused the misjudgement?:wavey:

No, it caused the death of an innocent man.

The legal system doesn't kill the man, the punishment does.

What part of this don't you understand?

Gris
04-17-2013, 06:56 PM
No, it caused the death of an innocent man.

The legal system doesn't kill the man, the punishment does.

What part of this don't you understand?

You haven't answered the question that how would you do with those murderers.

And just imagine how would families of the victim feel if the criminal is still alive.

Gris
04-17-2013, 06:57 PM
Innocent man dies in murder,while the criminal is alive-isn't that ridiculous?

Wing Man Frank
04-17-2013, 06:59 PM
You haven't answered the question that how would you do with those murderers.

And just imagine how would families of the victim feel if the criminal is still alive.

You cannot grasp the simple concept that the legal system isn't the one that kills the innocent individual, it's the barbaric punishment that is there on offer to be used; yet you want me to go into an in-depth discussion with you on the topic?

Go get a book, educate yourself on the subject and then we can have a discussion.

Gris
04-17-2013, 07:05 PM
You cannot grasp the simple concept that the legal system isn't the one that kills the innocent individual, it's the barbaric punishment that is there on offer to be used; yet you want me to go into an in-depth discussion with you on the topic?

Go get a book, educate yourself on the subject and then we can have a discussion.

Sadly the fact is that you haven't come up with a decent idea on what to do with those who intent to take others life.

Go get a book and educate yourself.

Wing Man Frank
04-17-2013, 07:08 PM
Sadly the fact is that you haven't come up with a decent idea on what to do with those who intent to take others life.

Go get a book and educate yourself.

You can have the last word should you wish as it's clear to anyone with a brain cell that you've shown yourself up in this thread.

Remember, facts win arguments, not personal opinion's.

Good luck son.

Gris
04-17-2013, 07:23 PM
You can have the last word should you wish as it's clear to anyone with a brain cell that you've shown yourself up in this thread.

Remember, facts win arguments, not personal opinion's.

Good luck son.

I haven't seen any facts in this thread seriously.All the arguments are based on the personal views.

To simplify the arguments:

a.Innocent man may be put to death wrongly.

b.Killers can get free some years later.

You would rather choose the latter while for me is the former as the outcome the latter brings is much more horrible-they are likely to commit murder again and more innocent man would die.

However it is in my country.If the legal system is so effective in Britain that there is just few or even no murderers exist,it's very reasonable for you to choose the latter.

swisht4u
04-17-2013, 10:44 PM
No death penalty, humans aren't smart enough to make those kind of decisions.

It took over 99% of our existence to figure out how to make a bicycle which is much simpler.

atennisfan
04-18-2013, 12:20 AM
Funny, how westerners are so against death penalty for proven murderers and yet authorize their governments to kill senselessly innocent people who are citizens of other countries.

Topspindoctor
04-18-2013, 12:25 AM
If it were up to me, in certain cases, torture would be legalized.

tripwires
04-18-2013, 12:50 AM
I haven't seen any facts in this thread seriously.All the arguments are based on the personal views.

To simplify the arguments:

a.Innocent man may be put to death wrongly.

b.Killers can get free some years later.

You would rather choose the latter while for me is the former as the outcome the latter brings is much more horrible-they are likely to commit murder again and more innocent man would die.

However it is in my country.If the legal system is so effective in Britain that there is just few or even no murderers exist,it's very reasonable for you to choose the latter.

You would prefer the former outcome that results in the definite death of one innocent man - not just any death, but a death sanctioned by the state - in order to prevent the possible deaths of more innocent men, based on a hypothesis clearly distorted by a prejudice against murderers, and you claim to be interested in protecting the lives of innocent people? Does the life of the innocent man wrongly put to death by the state not matter then? I won't even go into the kinds of human rights that such a scenario would violate, as I understand that China isn't really interested in human rights.

Mr. Oracle
04-18-2013, 12:54 AM
If it were up to me, in certain cases, torture would be legalized.

Like in Guantanamo and secret but "technically legal" CIA horror houses (black sites) in poland.

Gris
04-18-2013, 02:37 AM
You would prefer the former outcome that results in the definite death of one innocent man - not just any death, but a death sanctioned by the state - in order to prevent the possible deaths of more innocent men, based on a hypothesis clearly distorted by a prejudice against murderers, and you claim to be interested in protecting the lives of innocent people? Does the life of the innocent man wrongly put to death by the state not matter then? I won't even go into the kinds of human rights that such a scenario would violate, as I understand that China isn't really interested in human rights.

This is not a hypothesis,nor a prejudice.Simply a fact in China.

Discussions like this thread almost appeared in every Chinese forum I've been to.Yet about 95% man support the death penalty.

Maybe this is because we don't hear any misjudgement that put a innocent man to death,and perhaps it is for the media as they never spread news like that.

But the "hypothesis" is just fact.

tripwires
04-18-2013, 01:44 PM
This is not a hypothesis,nor a prejudice.Simply a fact in China.

Discussions like this thread almost appeared in every Chinese forum I've been to.Yet about 95% man support the death penalty.

Maybe this is because we don't hear any misjudgement that put a innocent man to death,and perhaps it is for the media as they never spread news like that.

But the "hypothesis" is just fact.

The issue isn't simply about the risk of putting an innocent man to death. It's also about the hypocrisy of the death penalty, which is essentially a state sponsored tool to exact private revenge - which is not what the criminal justice system is about.

It's curious that you didn't address the core of my point. But let's assume for argument's sake that a murderer does reoffend upon release - you argument is that we need the death penalty to get rid of these people so as to protect future victims. Your position is also that you would still support this system even if it results in the death of one innocent man. If you are interested in protecting innocent people, which is of course a worthwhile aim, what about the one innocent person that is put to death by the state for a crime he never committed?

Also, just because you don't hear of sub incidents in the media doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. But seriously, would you seriously expect to hear of such cases in china? Because you know, the Chinese media is free and not state controlled or anything.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Wing Man Frank
04-18-2013, 05:08 PM
This is not a hypothesis,nor a prejudice.Simply a fact in China.

Discussions like this thread almost appeared in every Chinese forum I've been to.Yet about 95% man support the death penalty.

Maybe this is because we don't hear any misjudgement that put a innocent man to death,and perhaps it is for the media as they never spread news like that.

But the "hypothesis" is just fact.

Chinese State media is hardly know for its impartiality is it?

Gris
04-18-2013, 05:25 PM
The issue isn't simply about the risk of putting an innocent man to death. It's also about the hypocrisy of the death penalty, which is essentially a state sponsored tool to exact private revenge - which is not what the criminal justice system is about.

It's curious that you didn't address the core of my point. But let's assume for argument's sake that a murderer does reoffend upon release - you argument is that we need the death penalty to get rid of these people so as to protect future victims. Your position is also that you would still support this system even if it results in the death of one innocent man. If you are interested in protecting innocent people, which is of course a worthwhile aim, what about the one innocent person that is put to death by the state for a crime he never committed?

Also, just because you don't hear of sub incidents in the media doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. But seriously, would you seriously expect to hear of such cases in china? Because you know, the Chinese media is free and not state controlled or anything.


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App (http://www.verticalsports.com/mobile)

Chinese State media is hardly know for its impartiality is it?


True.They are state-controlled and lie all the time.

But the media I mentioned isn't necessarily the official media as they are far from free.Here you have many other ways to know what is happening around without them.