Is the death penalty ever justified?

[master m99]

i don't think the death penalty should be used one there is the problem that you get the wrong guy and after killing him there not allot you can do to say "oops sorry turns out your innocent" and two i think for the people who deserve it killing is to quick surely LIFE in prison would be worse and by life i don't mean 25 years i mean life surely being left to rot no hope of ever getting out no light at the end of the tunnel nothing to look forward to slowly driven insane by this hopelessness that has got to be a fate worse then death for those who deserve it

 

[Antlers]

do you seriously judge people who watch UFC? or any other simulated "short of" blood sports? after all humans have always gotten their kicks killing eachother or watching it happen... hell look at the gaming community... I think anyone who looks at history and at humanity in general will agree with me. it would be popular, doesn't matter how many idealists there are, there are always twice as many brutes. and why not use them t distract said brutes into donating money into helping to propperly rehabilitate people who have done less than death penalty deserving crimes... like thieves for instance. people who have not completely destroyed someone's physical or emotional state, eh?

I see it as drawing the line, as an ironic way of dealing with things, as it is both progressive and regressive, it in a sense cancels itself out.

after all as long as there are people someone will kill someone else for some reason, call it the human condition, or whatever you want, that's just how it is.

I've never watched it but I assume they don't KILL each other.

You're apparently against murder but PRO pitting people against each other to KILL each other.

And progressive?! Are you fucking joking?

There's not really much else I can say. I'm just utterly disgusted with your opinion.

 

[Tempest Fennac]

Avykins, is there was no way to appeal, what would happen if it turned out someone was innocent? I remember reading in a Bill Bryson book called Notes From A Big Country that thousands of convictions were put at risk when it turned out forensic experts had made up or contaminated a load of evidence, and there was another case where it turned out the police were ignoring someone who wanted to confess to a crime where someone had been sentanced to death over it (the person who was wrongfully locked up wasn't executed in that case).

 

[Antlers]

Avykins, is there was no way to appeal, what would happen if it turned out someone was innocent? I remember reading in a Bill Bryson book called Notes From A Big Country that thousands of convictions were put at risk when it turned out forensic experts had made up or contaminated a load of evidence, and there was another case where it turned out the police were ignoring someone who wanted to confess to a crime where someone had been sentanced to death over it (the person who was wrongfully locked up wasn't executed in that case).

Cookies for Bill Bryson reference.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

do you seriously judge people who watch UFC? or any other simulated "short of" blood sports? after all humans have always gotten their kicks killing eachother or watching it happen... hell look at the gaming community... I think anyone who looks at history and at humanity in general will agree with me. it would be popular, doesn't matter how many idealists there are, there are always twice as many brutes. and why not use them t distract said brutes into donating money into helping to propperly rehabilitate people who have done less than death penalty deserving crimes... like thieves for instance. people who have not completely destroyed someone's physical or emotional state, eh?

I see it as drawing the line, as an ironic way of dealing with things, as it is both progressive and regressive, it in a sense cancels itself out.

after all as long as there are people someone will kill someone else for some reason, call it the human condition, or whatever you want, that's just how it is.

I've never watched it but I assume they don't KILL each other.

You're apparently against murder but PRO pitting people against each other to KILL each other.

And progressive?! Are you fucking joking?

There's not really much else I can say. I'm just utterly disgusted with your opinion.

difference between how you are taking my opinion and how it exists. in my experience when you take a part of someone elses humanity away you give up the right to be entirely human. rapists and child molesters are the lowest form of scum you will find anywhere. I also tend to slot mass murderers and other such individuals who decide killing is fun in this category.

i say you release a murderer (especially one who did it for kicks originally), or a rapist, or a child molester into regular life. they will again do such a degrading act again, and if you seriously think that having someone who killed innocent people kill or die in a fight against another such individual is sick... I don't know whether to think of you as a pro rape whackjob, or just someone who has little understanding about the true cruelty of this world.

and you are fully obliged to feel disgusted about whatever you want, but please try to read into the meat of my statements rather than just assuming I'm a bloodthirsty monster who kicks puppies... thank you very much

 

[Antlers]

in my experience when you take a part of someone elses humanity away you give up the right to be entirely human. rapists and child molesters are the lowest form of scum you will find anywhere. I also tend to slot mass murderers and other such individuals who decide killing is fun in this category.

We disagree on giving up the right to be human. That's why human rights exist.

i say you release a murderer (especially one who did it for kicks originally), or a rapist, or a child molester into regular life. they will again do such a degrading act again, and if you seriously think that having someone who killed innocent people kill or die in a fight against another such individual is sick... I don't know whether to think of you as a pro rape whackjob, or just someone who has little understanding about the true cruelty of this world.

If the likelihood that they'll do the act again is high, then obviously DON'T RELEASE THEM. I'm not saying you reward criminals with presents (as I think you're assuming I am), but I think your bloodthirsty (yes) 'solution' sounds very very extreme.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

in my experience when you take a part of someone elses humanity away you give up the right to be entirely human. rapists and child molesters are the lowest form of scum you will find anywhere. I also tend to slot mass murderers and other such individuals who decide killing is fun in this category.

We disagree on giving up the right to be human. That's why human rights exist.

i say you release a murderer (especially one who did it for kicks originally), or a rapist, or a child molester into regular life. they will again do such a degrading act again, and if you seriously think that having someone who killed innocent people kill or die in a fight against another such individual is sick... I don't know whether to think of you as a pro rape whackjob, or just someone who has little understanding about the true cruelty of this world.

If the likelihood that they'll do the act again is high, then obviously DON'T RELEASE THEM. I'm not saying you reward criminals with presents (as I think you're assuming I am), but I think your bloodthirsty (yes) 'solution' sounds very very extreme.

I also agree that it is extreme, however so is rape... to take such actions against another human is in itself breaching their "human rights" so why would we decide to go easy on someone by letting them have full access to the rights they intentionally and acceptingly deny another human being?

I can tell you only what I have seen and experienced, I know people who were molested as a child... i know people who have been raped... and from what i can see... it's a pretty severely life detrimenting experience.
and on the count of unjustifyable killings(murders) would you expect someone to forgive someone who killed a family member lover or friend, over something trivial... such as in the obtaining of goods through theft? or such other behavior as above mentioned?


also i did not intend to imply that you wanted them set free or rewarded... that would be beyond stupid and i never would assume that of anyone on this forum let alone reply to them.

 

[Ursus Astrorum]

As much a fan of civility as I am, I think it necessary in extreme cases dealing more with murder/rape than anything else. For more complex examples involving revenge and/or self-defense, the sentence would of course be lessened, but I think that there are some that simply do not learn from any punitive action. I think that a small evil for a greater good is an appropriate measure in this predicament.

Concerning the torture before death that everyone keeps bringing up, that would make us no better than some of the nastier criminals we're condemning. The days they wait on the Row will affect them more than enough. It's better to give them some mercy and make it quick rather than draw it out for our own prejudices.

 

[Antlers]

I've got to say something that will not be well receieved but... There's no doubt rape is bad. But I don't think it's very far removed from severely beating someone. It's the same kind of thing. I don't get why it's lumped in with murder. Obviously, there are different types and degrees, same as with beating. But no one mentions plain old beating.

And DoomyMcDoom (I forgot to click quote), no I'm quite sure I wouldn't forgive someone who committed a horrible crime directly affecting me. That's why I wouldn't be on the jury. You need unbiased people to make these decisions.

 

[DoomyMcDoom]

I've got to say something that will not be well receieved but... There's no doubt rape is bad. But I don't think it's very far removed from severely beating someone. It's the same kind of thing. I don't get why it's lumped in with murder. Obviously, there are different types and degrees, same as with beating. But no one mentions plain old beating.

And DoomyMcDoom (I forgot to click quote), no I'm quite sure I wouldn't forgive someone who committed a horrible crime directly affecting me. That's why I wouldn't be on the jury. You need unbiased people to make these decisions.

one of the reasons rape goes in with murder is beatings are purely physical... rape has emotional and chemical connections to certain parts of the brain that a fist or club of some sort will never make... if someone beats you severely and you are traumatized by it you don't trust people anymore and other such, with the help of counsellors and the learning of self defence this goes away you regain confidence... blah blah blah... rape screws up your mental connections with sex and your identity... especially if it was early on in your life... and that's a whole new basket of broken eggs to unscramble...

also I think beating should be treated with long periods of completely solitary confinement...
along with a mandatory emotions management course.

trick is, unbiased and unfeeling are two entirely different things. and a jury does not decide how a prisoner is punished... only if a prisoner is punished. and being a rather all or nothing kind of ruling system juries need to be unanimous don't they? if they are unfeeling they'll vote on it and switch to the more convenient side. and judge that way... unbiased would look more carefully into things and it is nigh impossible for a rational thinking feeling person to be entirely emotionally detatched from a situation involving such a heinous and unfeeling depravation of the rights they are called to defend.

I will say I find you to be a most fascinating conversationalist as you hold your end up without resulting to unneeded inflamation as a result of a lack of communication skill.
on this, I commend you. however, i must sleep. feel free to respond, but know my response may be a few hours in coming.

 

[oppp7]

courts r never 100% sure.

yes, y not make it effient instead of accurate? i used to think dp should b faster, but then i found out about the large # of innocent ppl in jail.

n slavery? i think a large portion of ppl would have issues with that...

I wasn't going to mention it but oppp7... Do you see ANYONE else using shorthand?

Amen brother. I feel like I need a damn decoder ring.
oppp7, no one is going to take you seriously, in fact most people will not even read what you say if you are unwilling to make it legible.

Fine, I'll stop being lazy... I thought you weren't going to answer me anymore? If you are, maybe you should try countering my views instead of taking the easy way out and insulting my writing style ON THE INTERNET.

 

[A random person]

What is with all the make them sufferness? seems rather pointless seeing as how one way or another they are going to die...

When it comes to crime we really like to see the criminals suffer. There are other threads like this, feel free to find them, you'll see my point. As for you, if you haven't figured it out, I quite agree with you it's pointless to make them suffer more.

But on topic, I'm not for the death penalty. I won't say much more since this thread is gonna be a haven for Rorschach-wannabees.

 

[Aesthetical Quietus]

Personally, I think there should be a death penatly but only for the following case:
Multiple homocides, [ie deliberate], where the perpertrator does not feel remorse for the victims. That or repeat homocides. [ie a serial killer].
Even then, it has to be proved that it was him. No beyond reasonable doubt. Beyond all doubt. [Obviously to a normal person's sense of doubt].
You must also have the following:
The victim(s) family's consent.
The perpertrator would normally recieve a sentence of no shorter than the rest of his natural life in jail.

And some other things I can't think of right now.

Needless to say, only in extreme cases, where said human is beyond all capacity to rejoin society as a normal functioning human being. Then said human should be removed, rather than thrown in prison for the rest of his life. Thereby saving both money, and potential for disaster should (s)he escape.

 

[infinisynth]

I'm very curious as most of you seem to be American (and I'm much more use to a UK/Ireland view on this) as to your thoughts on this.

I don't think combatting any kind of crime with murder is ok. And I think government controlled murder is murder nonetheless. And no matter how many examples (whenever people try to justify it they usually use cases with children as examples) people give me I just do not think it's justified.

Anyway, what do other people think of this?

Have a daughter and let some guy rape her and get back with me.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

An eye for an eye, my friend. If you kill, you deserve death.

If you're against the death penalty, then think for a second. What if you came home one day and your son or daughter has been murdered. You would not want the person who did this to have to sit in time out for a while and then be let free.

Either way, life in prison in just like the death penalty, because you're probably going to die there and you have no chance at freedom ever, so it's not any different. You're just ending it early.

EDIT: Crap, I forgot to mention. Before putting someone on death row, make completely sure that they are guilty. I mean, no doubt whatsoever. Putting an innocent man to death is wrong, so you need to have irrefutable evidence that he/she is the murderer or such.

 

[oppp7]

I think some people misinterpretted my statement about utilitarianism for humans. I don't view people as being tools to be used by the government, I view criminals as being worth less than starving people that have done nothing wrong.

Here's a question: Was the Civil War or World War 2 required, then? Obviously there's a difference between war and peacetime executions, but lets play your game and assume war is equal to peace and innocents are equal to the guilty.

 

[oppp7]

I'm very curious as most of you seem to be American (and I'm much more use to a UK/Ireland view on this) as to your thoughts on this.

I don't think combatting any kind of crime with murder is ok. And I think government controlled murder is murder nonetheless. And no matter how many examples (whenever people try to justify it they usually use cases with children as examples) people give me I just do not think it's justified.

Anyway, what do other people think of this?

Have a daughter and let some guy rape her and get back with me.

Revenge killings are never good and i don't think they solve as many issues as they cause.

 

[space_oddity]

I've got to say something that will not be well receieved but... There's no doubt rape is bad. But I don't think it's very far removed from severely beating someone. It's the same kind of thing. I don't get why it's lumped in with murder. Obviously, there are different types and degrees, same as with beating. But no one mentions plain old beating.

I agree dude, it isnt worse than murder or severe torture. Its just the fact that is an expression of such complete an utter dominance over someone, the most severe invasion of someones personal privacy that gets people so worked up.

And before some Feminazi quotes me saying "Imagine some guy raping you blah blah*, im going to cut you off here and say fuck off. I would rather be raped than murdered or tortured.

 

[mokey91]

An eye for an eye. You take a life, yours should be taken unless it's in defense.

I'm for it.

 

[A random person]

Why discriminate numerically? One murder is just as bad as two or three or four. Death Penalty for murderers. It's like giving them life but skipping out the long, expensive bit of keeping them in jail.

Many argue that this makes us as bad as the murderers. This is an illogical arguement which carried through to its conclsuion would mean that we could not punish anyone at all for their crimes. Also it mistakes the actions of the indivdual with the due process of law and order set down by society.

It's not that illogical an argument. I think jail is punishment enough. And anyway... I'm still much more on the 'rehabillitation' side of things regarding jail.

Since there seem to be some very bloodthirsty folk around this thread, would it not bother you that getting the death penalty is a bit... Easy? Like, that's it. Dead. They're not going to be bothered. They're dead. That's not my standpoint at all by the way... But I don't really understand.

There's another point I'm simply dying to bring up but I'm scared of flames... Maybe later.

With you on the rehabilitation thing. The people who go to jail are mostly rather impulsive and probably won't be deterred that strongly, and it would be better to rehabilitate them than to keep them locked up. That, and the whole golden rule thing I secularly believe in. Yeah, I know, I'm a softy.

As for that other point you were dying to bring up, I'll hazard a guess and say it's that last sentence you didn't quote saying it's not about the deterrence, it's about making him pay. I couldn't disagree more: deterrence is the only valid argument for the death penalty other than saving money. Taking a murderer's life because you believe in the value of human life is amazingly stupid in my eyes. And this isn't mentioning how punishment should never be "making them pay."

Feel free to correct me via PM if that wasn't the point you wanted to mention. I don't flame people, and we're probably on the same page anyways.