Think about it this way... If some guy broke into YOUR home, killed your entire family, raped your dog, and then prestiged your CoD4 character while you were in the bathroom, would YOU want the fucker to live?
Is the death penalty ever justified?
- Thread starter Antlers
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This.stinkychops said:
You can't talk about the death penalty and not talk about the justice system. Frankly no system is going to be right all the time, no matter how good. With a death penalty comes people who are put to death without reason, and that's just terrible for all involved.
Send them to a misible life in prison. At least then you can do something about it if fresh evidence is unearthed, you can do something for this poor prisoner. With the death penalty it's done.
It's an iffy stance for me.
I believe that a murderer should not be executed if it was a single murder. However, if someone goes and kills like 20 people, then yes, I say they should get executed.
BUT the problem comes in with the whole "proof" thing. Ideally, if you can 100% prove their guilt on hard evidence alone (security footage, forensics (DNA/fingerprints at the site), etc) then in the case of a multi-murderer, I say the death penalty is valid. But the issue is that that has almost never been done, and there are instances where someone is exonerated post-mortem, or where someone is put on death row and then all of the key witnesses withdraw their testimonies, saying they were forced to sign affidavits against their will whilst they were in grieving/shock after the murder, and later many of them said they had seen someone else do it instead (Look up Troy Anthony Davis)).
That and that there are often exonerations and posthumous exonerations now at frightening rates, and the unavailability of DNA evidence/testing to many people on death row (i.e., it is difficult for them to obtain any sort of DNA evidence for use in their trials) makes me think that the system just doesn't work that well. It's not like just throwing someone in prison- which is still a horrible thing if they're innocent- where you can let them out and pay reparations for the time they spent imprisoned. You execute an innocent, they're gone.
I believe that a murderer should not be executed if it was a single murder. However, if someone goes and kills like 20 people, then yes, I say they should get executed.
BUT the problem comes in with the whole "proof" thing. Ideally, if you can 100% prove their guilt on hard evidence alone (security footage, forensics (DNA/fingerprints at the site), etc) then in the case of a multi-murderer, I say the death penalty is valid. But the issue is that that has almost never been done, and there are instances where someone is exonerated post-mortem, or where someone is put on death row and then all of the key witnesses withdraw their testimonies, saying they were forced to sign affidavits against their will whilst they were in grieving/shock after the murder, and later many of them said they had seen someone else do it instead (Look up Troy Anthony Davis)).
That and that there are often exonerations and posthumous exonerations now at frightening rates, and the unavailability of DNA evidence/testing to many people on death row (i.e., it is difficult for them to obtain any sort of DNA evidence for use in their trials) makes me think that the system just doesn't work that well. It's not like just throwing someone in prison- which is still a horrible thing if they're innocent- where you can let them out and pay reparations for the time they spent imprisoned. You execute an innocent, they're gone.
When I said deterrence is valid, I really meant valid compared to the "make them suffer" thing. As for that going on about the "making them pay" thing, I was indirectly responding to the guy you quoted (again, his last sentence that you didn't quote), not you. I think we both agree that "making them pay" is stupid.Antlers said:
As for the guys who say "hang the bastards," that's just what happens on crime threads for some reason. Those comments really make me question how intelligent the Escapist community really is.
If they don't want to be good pepple, than kill them. I don't care if they're just schoolyard bullies, if they can't be reformed, kill them off, we don't need them. If they can be reformed... reform them. Go deep psychology on they ass, but if they've got a criminal mind, to hell with them, what good they do?
Well, if they'll mine the rocks, but you always have to be weary about the crafty ones,that try to break out. If you find out they're thinking, cattle prod. They're always fun.
Completely justifiable. No sense in letting rat poison expire.
Well, if they'll mine the rocks, but you always have to be weary about the crafty ones,that try to break out. If you find out they're thinking, cattle prod. They're always fun.
Completely justifiable. No sense in letting rat poison expire.
I also like the idea of puting different murders, rapists in one big arena/labyrinth and then watching them kill eachother. The winner of evry tournament gets a gameboy with crappy games.ThePeiceOfEden said:
I am all for the death penalty.
Why should the taxpayers pay for child molesters/rapists/murderers/gangbangers to have three meals a day, clean clothes, a roof over their heads, all the necessities paid for the rest of their natural born lives? Imagine what great things could be accomplished if so much money was not wasted on people who, quite frankly, had their chance and blew it. I have zero compassion for 'people' like them.
Does anyone really have any idea how bad the problem of overcrowding actually is in prisons here in the U.S. nowadays? It seems like a new prison is being built every couple of years! At this rate, there will be more prisons than Wal-Marts within the next two decades (that's just speculation mind you).
Why should the taxpayers pay for child molesters/rapists/murderers/gangbangers to have three meals a day, clean clothes, a roof over their heads, all the necessities paid for the rest of their natural born lives? Imagine what great things could be accomplished if so much money was not wasted on people who, quite frankly, had their chance and blew it. I have zero compassion for 'people' like them.
Does anyone really have any idea how bad the problem of overcrowding actually is in prisons here in the U.S. nowadays? It seems like a new prison is being built every couple of years! At this rate, there will be more prisons than Wal-Marts within the next two decades (that's just speculation mind you).
i think if we are going to have a death penalty it should be quicker. like "guilty! officers, take the convicted out back to the range and shoot him once in the head." its quick, its painless, its efficient, and it saves money wasted on giving criminals free food, clothes, shelter, an expensive leathal injection, and CABLE TV! not to mention its more humane than making them wait to be killed for 20 years. also if we did make punishments more punishing it would deter people from commiting crimes in the first place. im not saying execute a kid for stealing gum at a gas station. im talking only about the most viloent of crimes, like rape, murder, torture, assult with a deadly weapon. so while i may be in favor of the death penalty i dont want to use it exept for extreme cases.
I say that it is life for a life.
To me, it is not really the case of `all life is valuable` but I think that the families of the victims deserve justice.
If prison was really `prison` I would say that the death penaltly is unnecessary. But prison sentances are ever shorter and shorter plus prison seems more like a grim holiday camp than punishment. There is no `life imprisonment` as such anymore so they should bring back the death penalty for serious crimes.
To me, it is not really the case of `all life is valuable` but I think that the families of the victims deserve justice.
If prison was really `prison` I would say that the death penaltly is unnecessary. But prison sentances are ever shorter and shorter plus prison seems more like a grim holiday camp than punishment. There is no `life imprisonment` as such anymore so they should bring back the death penalty for serious crimes.
Where I live, that would not be vigilante justice as long as you were in the home when said events occurred. In my state, you have the right to defend your life, the lives of your family members, and your property by any means necessary. If that means putting a bullet between the eyes of the man standing over the bloody corpses of your family, then the state will side with you... Even if the intruder shows intent and no actual harm comes to your family. Heck, even if no intent to harm is shown, you still have the right to shoot them. "What is that person doing kicking in your front door anyway? How could their motives be anything but sinister?" That's what the courts would most likely say. How is there anything wrong with that? Would you want someone kicking in your door at 3am, and if they murdered your family and (for whatever reason) left you alive, wouldn't you want to see them die? I know I would.Antlers said:
However, in responding to this, it brings forth another question. If a person is shown to be a violent criminal and they have proven to be beyond help, why should they be allowed to live? Wouldn't their death prevent further death from even possibly occuring? If you put someone like that in a prison, they would probably just kill another criminal, and by the logic of some that have posted already, isn't that just as wrong?