Poll: How do you feel about death penalty?

[OneCatch]

Personally im sick of human rights for criminals, it pisses me off. Criminals should get zero rights. Seems the Human Rights act is only used for criminals when us normal people should sue them for fucking up our lives.

So, it should be ok to torture any convicted criminal to death? Not a no limits fallacy because you said 'zero rights'.

Also, the ECHR bans various forms of discrimination, demands judicial integrity (without which how do you determine who's eligible for your torture?), and codifies a whole range of democratic ideals. Yeah, a lot of it was on the statute book anyway, but in that case it hardly matters does it? Either the decision is beneficial, or you must blame the original domestic law anyway.
For the cases in which the ECHR has superseded domestic law, in as many cases it's been, at least here in the UK, abuse victims using the Human Rights Act to supercede domestic regulations that have prevented their cases from being investigate. It's been used to protect the privacy of citizens from an intrusive media, and to protect media outlets from gagging clauses and censorship.

It's not just used by criminals wanting bigger rooms and the vote.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

The whole POINT of this system is that to hand down the death sentence rather than life imprisonment, a judge has to be BLOODY sure of the evidence as presented.
yes, if the evidence he was given was wrong then he can die, but for that situation to have happened, he would already have killed an innocent man in cold blood (or had him killed, which is legally the same thing).
The fact the criminal justice system is hugely fallible is....kinda the whole point, this system is about making sure the death penalty remains confined to cases where the judge is absolutely certain that the convicted party is guilty.

Perhaps you missed the part where I explained how those cases DON'T FUCKING EXIST? For the reasons I very carefully explained?

There's no such thing as 100% probability, in real life there's basically never even 99% percent probability when it comes to courtrooms.

The circumstances you're suggesting don't exist. At the very best they exist in such absurdly rare circumstances that basing a law on them would be completely idiotic.

absolutely certain

What the fucking hell do you think this means? The criminal system isn't infallible, no sane person would ever risk their life on it, especially when they have pretty much no incentive to.

I can sort of see why this would be a nice thought for you, but if this system where real no one would ever be punished with the death penalty, because no one sane would give it to someone and bank on the american fucking criminal justice system, and any judge who did should be immediately fired for suicidal overconfidence.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Personally im sick of human rights for criminals, it pisses me off. Criminals should get zero rights. Seems the Human Rights act is only used for criminals when us normal people should sue them for fucking up our lives.

So, it should be ok to torture any convicted criminal to death? Not a no limits fallacy because you said 'zero rights'.

Also, the ECHR bans various forms of discrimination, demands judicial integrity (without which how do you determine who's eligible for your torture?), and codifies a whole range of democratic ideals. Yeah, a lot of it was on the statute book anyway, but in that case it hardly matters does it? Either the decision is beneficial, or you must blame the original domestic law anyway.
For the cases in which the ECHR has superseded domestic law, in as many cases it's been, at least here in the UK, abuse victims using the Human Rights Act to supercede domestic regulations that have prevented their cases from being investigate. It's been used to protect the privacy of citizens from an intrusive media, and to protect media outlets from gagging clauses and censorship.

It's not just used by criminals wanting bigger rooms and the vote.

What are you on about torture? Human rights are food, water, healthcare and place to sleep and no torture etc. There are killers that say getting no porno mags are against their human rights. Far as im concerned if you commit a crime you lose your rights as a human and get just basic human rights which. We innocents humans just working and living have the human right to not be killed, robbed or abused. Criminals have lost that right. Which is why the death penalty should be used for those that commit the worse kind of crimes, like the guy that shot 77 people and was caught and proven 100% that he did it. Criminals can rot.

 

[Dimitriov]

The historical precedent really derives from the fact that only the state (or a monarch etc.) has the right to kill someone. So a murderer has usurped the state's right over its own citizens and thus is punished by the state.

correct me if I'm wrong (and I may well be) but I don't think a state has the right to murder someone without evidence? so If a multiple murderer (or hell, a multiple rapist, or torturer, or other kind of genuine sicko)is given the death penalty, its not because only the state has the right to rape or kill people without trial, because the state DOESNT have those rights (at least in the UK, the state doesn't have the right to kill people....at all, to my knowledge)

You're not wrong, but I think you may have missed my point. Where a state has the legal right to put someone to death it is by the very definition not murder. You just asked whether "a state has the right to murder someone without evidence?" No, they generally do not.

In the first place because it is not murder. Murder by definition is an unlawful slaying of a person.

In the second place because where there are death penalties they exist as part of a justice system's sentencing. In most countries, and certainly in western countries, there is a long history and precedent that requires an evidence based trial before any sentencing. However, in somewhere like North Korea, the state may very well be allowed to kill one of its own citizens without any real evidence. At least according to law.

Doesn't necessarily make it a good thing, or mean that you, I, or any particular individual would agree with it. But it does mean it is legal, and that it is inappropriate to refer to a state sanctioned execution as murder (except, of course, in extreme cases where the state did not in fact follow the laws).

 

[BOOM headshot65]

Which is why I like the way we have it here in Kansas. While the death penalty is still on the books, no one has gotten it for over 60 years, and your average murder (ie, you kill one guy) will net you a "Hard 50", 50 years imprisionment, or if you outlive that, life.

Er... 50 years, or if you outlive that, life? What does that even mean?

EDIT: Actually, I just look up stuff on the "Hard 50." I thought it was just a "50 years, but since you are 18 and will thus walk out of jail instead of dieing of old age, you get a life sentance", the Hard 50 is just a mandatory minimum of 50 years in jail. I got confused because it usually comes with a life sentence (since the Hard 50 is given for Pre-Meditated murder and similar crimes.)

 

[zegram33]

[quote="Use_Imagination_here" post="18.842787.20740828]

"I can sort of see why this would be a nice thought for you, but if this system where real no one would ever be punished with the death penalty, because no one sane would give it to someone and bank on the american fucking criminal justice system, and any judge who did should be immediately fired for suicidal overconfidence."

you really aren't getting this are you?
THAT IS MY POINT
there shouldn't be a death penalty, because if there was, it would have to have at LEAST these restrictions to remain ethical.
and if it had those restrictions, it would never be used.
so the death penalty cannot be implemented ethically.

and @Dimitriov, I see your point

 

[Silvanus]

No system can guarantee 100% accuracy. And, the second the state has put an innocent to death, it is guilty of murder-- it's no better than the guilty people it has judged.

Even against the guilty, the hypocrisy still grates. So, I'm against the death penalty, absolutely.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I'm against it since it can be used wrongly like the recent example of that mother getting the death penalty just because she had tried to snuggle concaine into Indonesia. The only reason why she got that punishment (since her lawyer predicted her getting several year sentences before the final verdict) to they wanted to make an example of her to the other snugglers out there since concaine smuggle is common in Indonesia. Even then she is not drug dealer or anything like that in person as the reason why she had those drugs in the first place was she took part in a sting operation!
Even then given the proper criminal a quick death seen nothing when compared to the life long bordom in their confident or whatever they had hole up as the real punishment (true bordom/nothingness is hell).

 

[OneCatch]

Personally im sick of human rights for criminals, it pisses me off. Criminals should get zero rights. Seems the Human Rights act is only used for criminals when us normal people should sue them for fucking up our lives.

So, it should be ok to torture any convicted criminal to death? Not a no limits fallacy because you said 'zero rights'.

Also, the ECHR bans various forms of discrimination, demands judicial integrity (without which how do you determine who's eligible for your torture?), and codifies a whole range of democratic ideals. Yeah, a lot of it was on the statute book anyway, but in that case it hardly matters does it? Either the decision is beneficial, or you must blame the original domestic law anyway.
For the cases in which the ECHR has superseded domestic law, in as many cases it's been, at least here in the UK, abuse victims using the Human Rights Act to supercede domestic regulations that have prevented their cases from being investigate. It's been used to protect the privacy of citizens from an intrusive media, and to protect media outlets from gagging clauses and censorship.

It's not just used by criminals wanting bigger rooms and the vote.

What are you on about torture? Human rights are food, water, healthcare and place to sleep and no torture etc. There are killers that say getting no porno mags are against their human rights. Far as im concerned if you commit a crime you lose your rights as a human and get just basic human rights which. We innocents humans just working and living have the human right to not be killed, robbed or abused. Criminals have lost that right. Which is why the death penalty should be used for those that commit the worse kind of crimes, like the guy that shot 77 people and was caught and proven 100% that he did it. Criminals can rot.

I'm not quite getting this. You lose your rights as a human, but get basic human rights? Isn't that a tad contradictory? Human rights are basic rights. They are the ones which we afford to everyone. The right not to be tortured, the right to fair trial, the right to religion, etc. That's why I mentioned torture - a hypothetical person with 'zero rights' could be tortured entirely freely, or detained without trial, or killed.

There are aberrations whereby people attempt to use human rights legislation inappropriately, but they are few and far between, and almost always fail.

Anyway, by your response it would appear that you don't oppose the provision of certain rights - food, water, healthcare and place to sleep and no torture etc - to all humans, and that we thus agree on a little more than I initially thought. But I'd nonetheless I'd caution against describing your position as one of 'zero rights for criminals' when you agree with them being afforded certain rights and protections.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I'm against it for the simple reason that I think criminals should be made to suffer and there is no suffering in death.

 

[Lopende Paddo]

Against, You can't expect other country's to stop using murder (through stoning firing squad etc) as an punishment if you as a country still kill people "humanely" yourself.

not to mention the points others bring up in mass above (wrong convictions, cultural retardation etc).

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Personally im sick of human rights for criminals, it pisses me off. Criminals should get zero rights. Seems the Human Rights act is only used for criminals when us normal people should sue them for fucking up our lives.

So, it should be ok to torture any convicted criminal to death? Not a no limits fallacy because you said 'zero rights'.

Also, the ECHR bans various forms of discrimination, demands judicial integrity (without which how do you determine who's eligible for your torture?), and codifies a whole range of democratic ideals. Yeah, a lot of it was on the statute book anyway, but in that case it hardly matters does it? Either the decision is beneficial, or you must blame the original domestic law anyway.
For the cases in which the ECHR has superseded domestic law, in as many cases it's been, at least here in the UK, abuse victims using the Human Rights Act to supercede domestic regulations that have prevented their cases from being investigate. It's been used to protect the privacy of citizens from an intrusive media, and to protect media outlets from gagging clauses and censorship.

It's not just used by criminals wanting bigger rooms and the vote.

What are you on about torture? Human rights are food, water, healthcare and place to sleep and no torture etc. There are killers that say getting no porno mags are against their human rights. Far as im concerned if you commit a crime you lose your rights as a human and get just basic human rights which. We innocents humans just working and living have the human right to not be killed, robbed or abused. Criminals have lost that right. Which is why the death penalty should be used for those that commit the worse kind of crimes, like the guy that shot 77 people and was caught and proven 100% that he did it. Criminals can rot.

I'm not quite getting this. You lose your rights as a human, but get basic human rights? Isn't that a tad contradictory? Human rights are basic rights. They are the ones which we afford to everyone. The right not to be tortured, the right to fair trial, the right to religion, etc. That's why I mentioned torture - a hypothetical person with 'zero rights' could be tortured entirely freely, or detained without trial, or killed.

There are aberrations whereby people attempt to use human rights legislation inappropriately, but they are few and far between, and almost always fail.

Anyway, by your response it would appear that you don't oppose the provision of certain rights - food, water, healthcare and place to sleep and no torture etc - to all humans, and that we thus agree on a little more than I initially thought. But I'd nonetheless I'd caution against describing your position as one of 'zero rights for criminals' when you agree with them being afforded certain rights and protections.

If i was in control i would send those criminals that ***** about our prisons (im English) i would send to middle east prisons for a week. An see what they think then. Its sickening to think they get free education etc when normal non criminals dont get that. Criminals should get basic rights only. I say get rid of human rights laws, they are abused and not what they were intended to be.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

For everyone saying 100% does not ever exist - you are wrong. It exists, it's rare but it exists.

For example: someone is hauled in for suspicion of multiple murders, a serial killer, and there's enough evidence for a trial and his lawyer advises him that he's probably going to lose that trial and maybe face the death penalty - and that guy turns to the prosecutor and says "Okay, tell you what, I'll let you know where X amount of bodies are stashed if we settle on life-imprisonment instead." That is 100% That guy killed all those people. For sure. He's bargaining with the bodies.

Or cases of mass shootings where the police apprehend the shooter in the act, or directly after, gun in hand, bodies all around. That is 100% That person did those crimes without any question what-so-ever.

Or - as I mentioned in a previous post - when people are arrested literally surrounded by evidence of their crimes - body parts in their freezer, lampshades made of human skin, wearing someone's head as a hat, whatever. That is 100%

It is rare, but it happens sometimes that things are very, undeniably, clear cut.

Now, I'm all for considering lesser options in cases of less than 100% clarity of the facts, but let us not pretend that things are never, ever, clear cut. I mean, if you're against the death penalty even then - that's your position and you are entitled to it, but don't say we're never capable of being sure of things.

 

[rcs619]

It's a difficult issue to be sure.

I find myself generally opposed to it, but not out of some sort of softness for the worst of the worst. There are some people that are beyond rehabilitation (assuming our prison system every started trying to DO any rehabilitation anyway). People who are too great a threat to society to ever be released, and too far gone mentally or morally to ever rehab into something useful. But the reason I am against the death penalty is because our legal system is not perfect. Innocent people get off of death row all the time, and an unacceptable number of innocent Americans have surely been executed by their government over the years as well. To be honest, even one innocent person getting the death penalty is not worth the entire program in my opinion. I would rather the worst of the worst live out their lives in jail, than for one innocent person to be put to death by their own people. You can reverse a life sentence, you cannot reverse death.

In cases where there is incontrovertible proof of the crime, and assuming the crime is heinous enough, then yes, I think there are times where the death penalty is warranted. But in general, I feel like our current legal system is too focused on convictions and not actual justice, so it just is not reliable enough for the death penalty to be applied ONLY to the truly guilty.

Also, if we are going to have the death penalty, why don't we just shoot them in the head and get it over with? Something instant, and painless and without fanfare. I don't see how one form of state-sanctioned execution is any more barbaric than any other. There's just too much uncertainty about lethal injections, whether or not they are as painless and 'humane' as the drug companies claim they are, and there's plenty of cases where the injection was screwed up and the person getting it died in fairly horrible ways. Just, take them outside, give them the dignity of their last words, and shoot them in the head. Quick, painless and it's done. If you want to make it more humane of a process for the executioners, then make it a military-style firing squad so no one can blame themselves afterwards.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

People keep bringing up vengeance but I don't see it that way. I just see it as a pragmatic solution for removing a person from society who is beyond redemption. Housing them for a lifetime doesn't make any sense to me.

People have also been saying that it's not a deterrent, but if someone is in the state of mind that they would commit a crime that warrants a death sentence, is there anything that actually would be a deterrent?

There is also the money issue which is a problem in today's legal system (in the US anyway) but it's a problem with the system itself. There's nothing saying it can't change.

With all that said though, I'm still anti death penalty because -- as many of you have said -- it's easy to make mistakes and you can't retract an execution.

 

[DugMachine]

I've always struggled with this topic. I really don't like the idea of it but some people are such fucking low scum that I believe no amount of 'rehabilitation' would work. Or even should be given for that matter. Ideally I would be okay with the process if the executions were quick and only 100% proven guilty people were sent to death row. As it stands, you will stay years on death row costing even more money than just being a regular prisoner and people falsely sentenced have been and still are being executed.

Let them rot in a cell for all I care. You're not out right killing them but it's a long drawn out death in a sense.