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 ·
#2 ·
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.
 
#3 ·
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.
 
#4 ·
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?
 
#7 ·
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.
 
#6 ·
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.
 
#8 ·
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.
 
#16 ·
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.
 
#11 ·
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.
 
#13 ·
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.
 
#14 ·
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.
 
#17 ·
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.
 
#18 ·
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: star and Pirata.
#19 ·
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, which prohibits capital punishment on youngsters.

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

Be ashamed of yourselves.
 
#20 ·
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.
 
#21 ·
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.
 
#23 ·
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.
 
#24 ·
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.
 
#27 ·
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.
 
#33 ·
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.
 
#34 · (Edited)
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.
 
#35 ·
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?
 
#40 ·
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.
 
#41 · (Edited)
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
 
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