Mens Tennis Forums banner

Death penalty: Yes or No?

  • Yes

    Votes: 23 27.4%
  • No

    Votes: 54 64.3%
  • Don't know

    Votes: 7 8.3%

What do you think about death penalty?

11K views 180 replies 67 participants last post by  Gris 
#1 ·
#48 ·
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.
 
#52 ·
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.
 
#57 ·
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.
 
#55 ·
Similar with Casey Anthony--there was some backlash but now she's getting media and book deals.
 
#59 ·
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.
 
#63 · (Edited)
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...
 
#65 ·
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?
 
#72 ·
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.
 
#73 ·
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...
 
#76 ·
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.
 
#78 · (Edited)
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.
 
#79 ·
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.
 
#82 ·
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
 
#85 ·
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.
 
#86 ·
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.
 
#87 ·
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?
 
#88 ·
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.
 
#91 · (Edited)
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
 
#112 ·
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.
 
#92 ·
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.
 
#101 ·
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.
 
#93 ·
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.
 
#94 ·
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.
 
#95 ·
#96 ·
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top