Poll: Death Penalty

[Grampy_bone]

If you support the death penalty, and the law kills an innocent person, then you support murder; now you are subject to the death penalty.

By that logic, if I support the prison system, which may or may not be the imprisonment of an innocent person, then I support kidnapping, making me subject to going to prison. Yeah, that's not exactly how it works.

But you do acknowledge that innocent people go to prison. Is killing innocent people okay in order for criminals to be "permabanned?" How many innocent people is it okay to sacrifice per dead criminal? 1? 10? 100? Seriously, I'd like to know. What do we tell their familys?

"Sorry, your husband/father/wife/child was innocent, but we also gassed a couple other bad guys today, so it's a fair trade."

 

[Ultrajoe]

Until you can make a gift of life, you have no right to make it a commodity under your control.

 

[Jark212]

I love the Death Penalty, but the BS part is we make sure that they die "humanly" after all the unforgiveable acts they commited... Plus it takes like 20 years until there finaly excuted. So I think once the've had there chance at appealing and failed they should be taken to a deep part of the woods and shot in the back of the head, quick, and painless.

 

[scrape]

You can keep the death penalty if you also enact this law:

If a person is convicted, sentenced to death, executed, and later exonerated, kill the witnesses who testified against him, the judge who sentenced him, the jury who found him guilty, and the prosecution team.

That will either make people REALLY cautious about sentencing someone to death, or damn determined to stop anyone from investigating cold cases. Either way, Cold Case on CBS is canceled and I'm happy.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

Go back to victorian prisons.

Wake up at 5 am, out into the work room and start turning the wheel. Continue until bedtime. What does this wheel do? Nothing. It just turns. It serves no useful purpose other than to piss you off.

Or shoveling rocks. Take the rock pile from one side of the yard to the other. Then back again. Ad infinitum.

So...you want to turn all criminals into Arnold Schwarzenegger as Conan? A few years of turning that big ole' wheel...and bam! Supercriminals!

To do that you would have to be feeding them a lot of protien and carbs every day. Can't build muscle if you have nothing to build it with. But I get the joke.

 

[Gitsnik]

You can't take back an execution, which is all fine and dandy until you get the wrong person. How do you release someone who's dead?

This is the argument I hear all the time when this discussion comes up (every couple of months or so with my circle of friends) and I have to say it's invalid.

A statement like that needs qualification though, so let me use a question, and an example:

How often does a police officer fire on an innocent person?

There is a paedo in Australia whose been in the news for quite a while now (not so much these days) who was convicted, and not very sorry for what he did. This person doesn't kill his victims, he merely destroys there lives. If he is locked away for 50 years and is released (my length of time might be wrong but let's face it one was recently released), do we trust him?

The two questions appear unrelated until you think about it, if a police officer rarely kills an innocent person (I know of no cases out here in Australia where they have), and that same judgement/situation is used for the death penalty, then is there a problem with it.

Of course this all falls down when you look at the justice system because there's no justice in it, it's all about the exact wording of the laws.

 

[The Wooster]

i have a feeling this thread is going to be longer than my... surfing board

i support death penalty for those who comitted two or more murders with some period of time in between

So if I murder two people at once I don't get the chair? Awesome.

I don't believe the death penalty serves any useful purpose.

Honestly I think the only people that should have an opinion on this subject are the victims of the murderers, rapists, and gangs/thugs.

Because those people will obviously have a non-biased and balanced opinion.

 

[Zykon TheLich]

You're going to have to explain that one a bit better Gitsnik, I'm really not seeing your invalidation of fix-the-spades argument.

EDIT: If you are comparing a police officer discharging a weapon on the street at what is thought to be an immediate danger to him/herself and the general public to the killing of someone who is in custody and poses no further threat to society unless released, then I think your point is shaky at best

 

[Ultrajoe]

Its easy to brush aside 'Ethical Bullshit' when making this argument.

But isn't that why you're killing the criminals? Because they abandoned their Humanity?

Its not about them, they gave up their chance. Its about protecting society... it stands, therefore, we shouldn't pervert our own morals on their behalf.

I already know all the counter-arguments, so feel free to show me your own version of them.

 

[LV Solace]

The death penalty, something I've often debated in english class.

MY stance, yes I am for the death sentence. There are just certain people who dont deserve to live. Yes Joe over there who is porrer than hell and robbed a bank to keep his thee children alive, is a good person in a bad situation.

However Roger int he other corner who raped and killed ten women, is a sadistic fuck with no remorse. HE doesn't deserve to live.

This brings issue to the people who say, "How can person A be better than person B?" Thats simple, is a person who saved thousands of people, by say evacuating them from a city about to be wiped off the earth by a missile strike, the same as a man who has raped ten people?

Obviously the rapist is worce, but people will still argue that he doesnt deserve to die. That him and that savior, are equal, and neither should die, that both are good people.

Yes I support the killing of people, that commit horrible crimes. Just on the basis that some people dont deserve to live.

 

[Rankao]

Well it might be because I am evil, but I don't see executioner as a form of punishment. I see it the same as putting a bear down that has attacked a person (the difference is the human in this case has killed.) Once a person become feral they become dangerous to the society. As soon as they are not capable of deciding(or caring about) the difference what is right and wrong is it even moral to simply separate them from society and tell them they are bad person and they should be punished. I mean we aren't working with Children here (most of the time.) This is why I am against being not guilty for being Insane. If they aren't able to see that reasonless killing is a violation of someone else rights how can they even comprehend that too inherently have those rights.

 

[Gitsnik]

You're going to have to explain that one a bit better Gitsnik, I'm really not seeing your invalidation of fix-the-spades argument.

EDIT: If you are comparing a police officer discharging a weapon on the street at what is thought to be an immediate danger to him/herself and the general public to the killing of someone who is in custody and poses no further threat to society unless released, then I think your point is shaky at best

Nah I can understand why it looks shaky. The problem is that you're in a discussion where people are going to have their opinion and (probably) never change it. Basically what I'm saying is that if we look at the death penalty as a "omg he murdered someone kill him" situation then we're not doing the right thing - kind of like compulsory punishments for crimes.

I'm trying to make more sense, bear with me I'm still pretty out of it.

There was a criminal just recently (I think it may have been that paedo) who was released because there was no way he could get a fair trial due to public opinion.

Just think about that last sentence for a moment there. There is an individual who is guilty, whom the majority of a nation feels is a danger to 'society' and we let him go? This is the sort of situation I mean we should be using the death penalty in. He can't get a fair trial on, for example, murder/torture charges, serial aggravated sexual assault, or child molestation? Kill him.

Personally I think the bastards are lucky we're being kind enough to do it "humanely" and not tearing their insides out through their orifices.

 

[Ultrajoe]

He can't get a fair trial on, for example, murder/torture charges, serial aggravated sexual assault, or child molestation? Kill him.

Read that back to yourself, will you?

 

[Lord Krunk]

I am pretty 50/50 on this topic.

FOR: Saves up jail space. The Death Penalty doesn't exist in Australia (Last execution was Ned Kelly; I think), so I really can't say exactly how efficient this is.

AGAINST: My sadistic side wants to watch them suffer, and they can't do that while dead. My nicer side says that no one deserves to die.

 

[sirdanrhodes]

I'm pro penalty, ish. I believe that we should take criminals to do a real life to the death counter strike match, and the winners get to go to prison and serve their sentence...

That is an awesome idea.

Well, it'd be much cheaper than housing criminals I was being serious about this idea...

 

[Catballs]

I think that the death penalty should be optional, but the choice goes to the prisoner.The choice would only be given if the prisoner was dealt a life sentence, because I would rather be dead than in jail.

 

[Smiles]

I hate people, so I could care less if they killed you all

 

[Lord Krunk]

I think that the death penalty should be optional, but the choice goes to the prisoner.The choice would only be given if the prisoner was dealt a life sentence, because I would rather be dead than in jail.

Um, if a guy walked into an orphanage and blew up everyone there, I wouldn't give him a choice.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

I don't have a problem with the death penalty in theory, but I do in practice. The way the justice system works in the United States not only makes it very likely that people will be killed for crimes they did not commit, if makes it very likely that a disproportionate number of POOR people go to their deaths because they could not get the legal representation that would keep them out of death row.

The sleeping defense lawyer has become the poster boy for the No Death Penalty movement:

"The fact that Texas prosecutors can assert that a sleeping lawyer is adequate representation in a capital case is more evidence of a systematic problem that should be examined. Texas should impose a moratorium on executions until this and other fundamental questions of fairness can be addressed." [http://www.aclu.org/capital/unequal/10466prs20020603.html]

Also, death penalty cases are much more expensive than life in prison without parole. [http://www.crawfordstake.com/2006/08/death-penalty-myth-1-its-cheaper-than.html]