Poll: The Death Penalty

[EMFCRACKSHOT]

I'm for it, i think it should be used for lesser crimes too. Cheaper than prsion, puts a massive amount of fear into criminals and its more fun. I also think all trials should be in a format very similar to that of a military tribunal

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

I'm against it.

Sentencing someone who's murdered another person (or another crime) to death just seems so hypocritical... yes, they've done something wrong, but killing them just makes us as bad as him/her. Besides, they don't get a chance to redeem themselves or feel regret if we just kill them.

How could they redeem themselves if they take another person life for no reason? t least with the death penalty its FOR a reason.

 

[Treblaine]

I am in favour of the the death sentence to prevent things like the Al Megrahi case, where a terrorist mass murderer is traded by an unpopular government for a lucrative oil contract with a despotic regime in appeasing the whim of an equally murderous dictator.

Oh course the death sentence for only the most serious crimes like the murder of multiple individuals, or a single murder in a particularly sadistic and torturous way or where the victim is someone especially vulnerable or important.

While I'm not against it as such, the big problem for me is that once someone is dead thats it. If it is later proven they are innocent it looks really bad.

The problem with that argument is that can apply to any punishment. If someone spend 50 years in jail then is proven innocent, being release doe not suddenly "undo" the punishment. it is basically an argument for inaction, to not punish but just take a complete lack or responsibility in administering justice.

It also fundamentally undermines confidence in any idea of fair judicial process as if the verdict is by default able to be added and taken away rather than what it IS which is that a verdict is FINAL. That is the entire point of JUSTICE. Appeal is exactly what is sound like, an appeal, there they are guilty until proven innocent once the jury of 12 have made their decision.

 

[CrystalShadow]

No.

There's no excuse for killing another person.

Not to mention that the legal systems in most countries have about a 20% false positive rate!

1. Yes there is. Self-Defence or the defence of another, your property or rights is as valid an excuse to kill anyone as there ever was. Tell me that you wouldn't kill me, if I was threatening the life of someone you loved. Or rather, don't. I'd rather not believe that sort of thing, nor believe I'd been lied to.

2. Statistics, please.


My view: For the killers of children, rapists, and murder during the commission of another crime, yes. But when some poor woman who's taken fifteen years of abuse finally snaps, then I'd say that a more lenient punishment is better. 15 years sounds reasonable. And 5-10 for manslaughter. And we need to institute the 'Castle' ruling, so to make it perfectly clear the law is there to protect law-abiding citizens, not dirtbags.

1. Self-defense is a pretty feeble excuse. No, I'm not going to hold it against someone if they kill another person in self-defence, but I don't believe it's acceptable to work from the principle that it's alright to kill someone just because you did it in 'self defense'.

2. Yeah, an exaggeration on my part (it's only about 10%). But have a look at what I found in less than 5 minutes:
http://www.truthandjusticedenied.com/Wrongful_Conviction_Statist.html - The United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, admits that statistically 8% to 12% of all state prisoners are either actually or factually innocent.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/1/7/9/5/p17957_index.html - erroneous conviction are far more likely to occur in murder cases - and especially in capital murder cases - than in other felony prosecutions.

-> Not an especially promising set of information, especially when you consider the death penalty.

Are you willing to accept that 1 in 10 of the people executed didn't actually do anything wrong? You can't reverse an execution...

 

[Treblaine]

I'm for it, i think it should be used for lesser crimes too. Cheaper than prsion, puts a massive amount of fear into criminals and its more fun. I also think all trials should be in a format very similar to that of a military tribunal

Funny you say that, I used to live in Adu Dhabi in the UAE and I remember on several occasions the papers reported of Drug Dealers being sentenced to death for even dealing small amounts. I believe they were sentenced to death by decapitation.

I can testify from hanging out in some of the grimiest scenes in Abu Dhabi that it was bone dry, there was a black market for booze but not a gram of cocaine, heroin or even cannabis.

When I later moved to a school in UK there was drug use everywhere to the point where my school was practising randomised drug testing and all the time people were getting expelled for it.

I can't say I agree with the UAE's methods but boy, do they deliver the results.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Homeless person? You take the tele back and give them some money, as you feel sympathy for them and with all this forensic stuff going on, you can probabaly prove someones guilty 9 times out of 10, but I think they should give the death penalty only if they're sure there are no holes surrounding there suspiciousness.

That's the problem. You are never sure if there are holes in the case. You may think that you know everything about it, but there is always room for error.

Which is why I'm against the death penalty. Someone who is innocent could be killed. That and it really serves no purpose.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

"An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind"

There is no excuse.

 

[Treblaine]

No.

There's no excuse for killing another person.

Not to mention that the legal systems in most countries have about a 20% false positive rate!

1. Yes there is. Self-Defence or the defence of another, your property or rights is as valid an excuse to kill anyone as there ever was. Tell me that you wouldn't kill me, if I was threatening the life of someone you loved. Or rather, don't. I'd rather not believe that sort of thing, nor believe I'd been lied to.

2. Statistics, please.


My view: For the killers of children, rapists, and murder during the commission of another crime, yes. But when some poor woman who's taken fifteen years of abuse finally snaps, then I'd say that a more lenient punishment is better. 15 years sounds reasonable. And 5-10 for manslaughter. And we need to institute the 'Castle' ruling, so to make it perfectly clear the law is there to protect law-abiding citizens, not dirtbags.

1. Self-defense is a pretty feeble excuse. No, I'm not going to hold it against someone if they kill another person in self-defence, but I don't believe it's acceptable to work from the principle that it's alright to kill someone just because you did it in 'self defense'.

2. Yeah, an exaggeration on my part (it's only about 10%). But have a look at what I found in less than 5 minutes:
http://www.truthandjusticedenied.com/Wrongful_Conviction_Statist.html - The United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, admits that statistically 8% to 12% of all state prisoners are either actually or factually innocent.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/1/7/9/5/p17957_index.html - erroneous conviction are far more likely to occur in murder cases - and especially in capital murder cases - than in other felony prosecutions.

-> Not an especially promising set of information, especially when you consider the death penalty.

Are you willing to accept that 1 in 10 of the people executed didn't actually do anything wrong? You can't reverse an execution...

Put it this way... would you kill Hitler?

Seriously, if you had the chance to do it yourself or merely decide, would you kill Adolf Hitler?

Do you think that no good murdering-genocidal-racist-goose-stepping sonuvabitch deserves to live or should he die?!?!

 

[Treblaine]

Homeless person? You take the tele back and give them some money, as you feel sympathy for them and with all this forensic stuff going on, you can probabaly prove someones guilty 9 times out of 10, but I think they should give the death penalty only if they're sure there are no holes surrounding there suspiciousness.

That's the problem. You are never sure if there are holes in the case. You may think that you know everything about it, but there is always room for error.

Which is why I'm against the death penalty. Someone who is innocent could be killed. That and it really serves no purpose.

Maybe we should take guns away from police then. Sure 99% of the time they are used justifiably against dangerous armed criminals that are a threat to anyone who crosses them but what if they just have a toy gun or if the gun isn't loaded or if they were just "foolin' around"?

Oh wait, that's what we have in the UK. And you know what? I feel *REALLY* safe knowing the people sworn to protect me and my loved ones couldn't even take on a punk armed with a baseballs bat or a shard of broken glass.

 

[Doctor Glocktor]

"An eye for an eye does indeed leave everyone blind, but would you really want a world where only the wicked could see???"

Jark212 posted this in the pedophile castration thread, and it is one of the most brilliant things I've ever seen.

 

[Draco Kaiser]

Why pay taxes to keep a murderer alive? Eye-for-an-eye. Killed for being a killer.

Same for rapists.

But accidental killing, manslaughter, that gets a 30-50 year sentence.

I totally agree with you. That's my logic.

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

I think it should be re-instated in the UK. It's something that would seriously bring down crime, and gives the murderer/rapist/conspirator payment in kind for their actions.

I agree with earlier posts about manslaughter though. That doesn't deserve the death sentence, if they didn't intend to kill.

 

[CrystalShadow]

No.

There's no excuse for killing another person.

Not to mention that the legal systems in most countries have about a 20% false positive rate!

1. Yes there is. Self-Defence or the defence of another, your property or rights is as valid an excuse to kill anyone as there ever was. Tell me that you wouldn't kill me, if I was threatening the life of someone you loved. Or rather, don't. I'd rather not believe that sort of thing, nor believe I'd been lied to.

2. Statistics, please.


My view: For the killers of children, rapists, and murder during the commission of another crime, yes. But when some poor woman who's taken fifteen years of abuse finally snaps, then I'd say that a more lenient punishment is better. 15 years sounds reasonable. And 5-10 for manslaughter. And we need to institute the 'Castle' ruling, so to make it perfectly clear the law is there to protect law-abiding citizens, not dirtbags.

1. Self-defense is a pretty feeble excuse. No, I'm not going to hold it against someone if they kill another person in self-defence, but I don't believe it's acceptable to work from the principle that it's alright to kill someone just because you did it in 'self defense'.

2. Yeah, an exaggeration on my part (it's only about 10%). But have a look at what I found in less than 5 minutes:
http://www.truthandjusticedenied.com/Wrongful_Conviction_Statist.html - The United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, admits that statistically 8% to 12% of all state prisoners are either actually or factually innocent.

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/1/7/9/5/p17957_index.html - erroneous conviction are far more likely to occur in murder cases - and especially in capital murder cases - than in other felony prosecutions.

-> Not an especially promising set of information, especially when you consider the death penalty.

Are you willing to accept that 1 in 10 of the people executed didn't actually do anything wrong? You can't reverse an execution...

Put it this way... would you kill Hitler?

Seriously, if you had the chance to do it yourself or merely decide, would you kill Adolf Hitler?

Do you think that no good murdering-genocidal-racist-goose-stepping sonuvabitch deserves to live or should he die?!?!

I don't care.

First of all, vilifying another person (or group), leads to the same idiocy that Hitler caused in Germany at that time to begin with.

No, I wouldn't kill Hitler. In principle.

On practical grounds, I would do whatever it takes to ensure someone like that can't do any further harm.
But to do that, you have to understand how they managed to be able to do harm in the first place.

What you're implying is scape-goating, anyway. Not justice, or even protecting 'society'...

You lash out at another because you feel victimised...
But hurting someone doesn't undo whatever it is they did. - It just causes more pain.

Revenge is not a good basis for a system of justice.

 

[Ben7]

For certain crimes definatly, it saves money and they get what they deserve.

 

[hippo24]

Death is too nice for someone like a murderer, and because we don't like killing people who kill other people why not do this:

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Servitor

Yes, I know bringing very nerdy, and completely fictional works into a "very serious discussion on the Internet" for satirical purposes, but my point still stands.

Is robbing someone of their livelihood the same as killing them? Is death really the worst thing that can happen to someone? If killing is wrong, is locking someone In jail until they die any better.

Personally:

[HEADING=2]"Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnosce"[/HEADING]​

 

[Jurassic Rob]

The state should not have the right to kill one of its citizens.

 

[caz105]

Why pay taxes to keep a murderer alive? Eye-for-an-eye. Killed for being a killer.

Same for rapists.

But accidental killing, manslaughter, that gets a 30-50 year sentence.

Ah but an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind/wisdom.
Bring back corporal punishment, I mean whose going to steal again if they have no hands.

 

[That_Which_Isnt]

I'll state the arguement I always state when this question comes up:

Murderers may not have the right to life, but we should never have the right to kill them.

As soon as you allow one person* to have more rights than another, then in my view, something is seriously wrong.

(*I am referring to law abiding people by the way).

That's pretty much the basis of anarchist ideas, we're all equal, why does Obama have more influence then me? Because we arbitrarily "said so?"

 

[Lunar Templar]

i'm for it. seiral killers/rapists/child molesters should all getta date with the hangman.
how ever theres plenty of grey area, not saying kill every crimmal, just the ones that can't be reformed